Holocaust in Denver

Judy Fox · Post by **Judy Fox** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:21 am

I am so sorry about the precious Chows being threatened.
Like Jeff, I always put myself between myself and any other dog and we have threatened people with dogs running loose that we will hit their dogs if they don't stop them attacking! And we would!

I also agree that all dogs cannot be tarred with the same brush.

We have a friend who has two rotties - beautiful big soft babies. They havn't got a good press here on The Island and I asked my friend's husband why theirs are so lovely when the breed has a bad reputation. His answer was simple - they are well fed, know where they stand regarding behaviour and are well housed. They have a small - holding in the country.

So take care everbody.

Nick Bellenbaum · Post by **Nick Bellenbaum** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:39 am

Whenever i'm at the dog park i'm also wary of American Bulldogs. Like Pits they are extremely powerful for their size and also display signs of aggression.
Luckily, the only one i've met so far in this area was muzzled and taken away once he started to act aggressive towards other dogs.
I feel sorry for the dog and the owner. The owner is trying to socialize the dog, but it just won't assimilate.
I entirely agree with the other posters in this case. The Pitbull has come to represent a kind of status symbol amongst young men. I guess i was never so angst-ridden that i needed to put on a public display of my masculinity, but there will always be some...

Nick Bellenbaum · Post by **Nick Bellenbaum** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:40 am

Whenever i'm at the dog park i'm also wary of American Bulldogs. Like Pits they are extremely powerful for their size and also display signs of aggression.
Luckily, the only one i've met so far in this area was muzzled and taken away once he started to act aggressive towards other dogs.
I feel sorry for the dog and the owner. The owner is trying to socialize the dog, but it just won't assimilate.
I entirely agree with the other posters in this case. The Pitbull has come to represent a kind of status symbol amongst young men. I guess i was never so angst-ridden that i needed to put on a public display of my masculinity, but there will always be some...

Post by **Zhuyos mom** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:48 am

Elaina wrote: Bans have a tendency, in this country (US), to take that very item you're banning underground. When a banned item goes underground, it becomes worse, even deadly (i.e. drugs deemed illegal, alcohol in the 1920s, etc) Yes, young men who are insecure with themselves and their status in life, with no other outlets for their insecurity, maybe responsible for what appears to be an increase in pit bull attacks, but should the mature pit bull lover pay the price by uprooting his/her family and possibly his/her job in order to keep the dog? I don't think this is fair. I also believe that there are more good dog owners, than stupid ones. Lets use our brains to determine a better solution.

Elaina - It's good to hear your thoughts on this. What you just wrote was exactly what I wrote yesterday to both my state Senator and Assemblyman. California has a bill SB 861 that changes our non-discrimination of breeds. What you just wrote is identical to what I said to them. Thanks for validating my "soap box".

Jeff - Have you sent in a letter to your area Senator and Assemblyman yet? On the chow discussion forum, I have links to a petition and a state govt. link to share your thoughts about this bill. SB 861 goes on show at 1:30pm (PST). I have a letter the ASPCA sent me to write my Senator and Assemblyman about the bill. It sends the letter directly to them. I can forward it to you if you like. I'll need your e-mail address. Send it to me via the Private Message mailbox on this site.

If this bill passes, it will domino to the other states.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:03 pm

I never said to "ban" a breed. I said they should be leashed and muzzled at all times, and that if a city wants to, they should be allowed to ban the breeding of the dog, but not destroy the dogs that are already there. Also, I don't buy the domino theory or scare tactic of getting other breed owners to defend the Pit, buy saying that there dog will be next. As the previous poster stated, the Pit were recently purposely bred for fighting, and those genes have spread across North America. I don't believe this has occurred with any other breed. Breeders of all other dogs are doing the exact opposite. Pits are a special case, and I don't think it is wrong or discrimination to acknowledge that. To overract and have an automatic knee jerk reaction that everything the government does to try and protect US is also wrong is not going to improve the situation. Infact it will make it worse, as there are more and more casualities, the calls for something to be done are going to get louder and louder. Better to protect the breed by limiting and controlling it now that to have it completely destroyed and have people angry, hurt and putting themselves at risk to defend their dogs.

Jeff&Peks · Post by **Jeff&Peks** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:35 pm

I think one of the biggest problems we have here is the News, Pits are a hot topic right now so the news will jump on a pit even if it sneezes in the wrong direction. Everyone has heard about the Pits attacking the teen in San Francisco but how many of you have heard about the Huskies killing the baby in Tahoe or the Rott that the husband brought home to his wife for protection, as soon as he walked out the door the Rott attacked and killed his wife. There are hundreds of stores about different breeds attacking and killing people but for some reason only the Pit makes headline news.
As I have said many times before most of these people condemning Pits, Chows and what ever other breed that has that killer dog title, most don't even know what a Pit or Chow looks like, Pits are news so lets jump on the band wagon.

What Lou says about a Domino effect is True especially when it concerns San Francisco, SF has a big influence on other states and cities, I am really surprised that San Francisco would ever even think of passing a Law like that.

As for scare tactics, its not scare tactics, anyone that has owned a Chow knows a Chow has almost as bad a rep as a Pit does, in many cities if you even mention a Chow you can't get home owners insurance or even move into places that allow dogs. Chow just aren't news worthy at the moment but as soon as the politicians and the news are finished trying to scare everyone and trying to get votes at the Pits expense, Chows will be next or maybe Rotts, it will depend on which breed gets the most readers.

Lou, I have signed a few of those petitions some to Denver and SF, I' am really surprised at SF but I guess it only takes one politician with no life to start trouble. It must be getting close to voting time up there but SF people are the wrong people to mess with.

Juniper · Post by **Juniper** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:47 pm

Elaina - I am so happy that Max and Maya are OK. Max sounds like Maya's night in shining armor!

Jasper - I am so sorry for the ordeal you have gone through and it aches my heart.

My personal belief and experience is that 'unpredictable' behavior is an excuse for those who have not spent an enormous amount of time observing their pet's behaviors very closely in every possible situation. Pets can be de-conditioned from aggressive behaviors even though there may be some genetic coding involved. It's just a huge investment of time that many owners are not willing to put in.

This past weekend, at Sheena's advanced training session, I told the trainer and the others that I will not allow Sheena to do any training today, she will just watch, since I'd noticed she seemed a wee bit more rushed in her behavior this morning. Something just wasn't right yet everything appeared normal otherwise. The trainer and the little girl did not listen to me, approached and Sheena snapped about 12 inches from their hands. They got the message. Luckily, Sheena was on-leash so I didn't allow her to get any closer to them. (That happened to be about 15 minutes after 11:45 AM PST, the day Tahoe had an earthquake and it was not felt by me or anyone else at the time.)

Needless to say we didn't go to the no-leash park that day since Sheena might have picked a fight or pulled one in. Sometimes I feel Sheena will initiate aggressiveness by others by doing nothing except standing her ground and once I correct her the others change their attitude towards her and just walk away.

Owners are totally responsible for perceiving those so-called 'unpredictable' behaviors. If there is a need for socialization a person should keep their pet muzzled and on a leash, even in a no-leash park, to learn as much as they can about their pets behaviors. However, I do feel that no true socialization or training occurs with a muzzle and leash continuously on.

Much of what has been said I am in agreement with-It's the people that are the problem-not the breeds and we need to protect ourselves and our Chows..

Post by **Zhuyos mom** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:51 pm

AMEN, Jeff!

Unfortunately the bill passed the first step. There's one more step to go before it becomes state law beginning January 2006. When I mentioned domino effect on SB 861, it's because, again, this would be a state LAW and not a city ordinance. You're only fooling yourselves if you don't think there will be a domino effect.... nationwide homeowners insurance, liablity insurance for those whose dogs qualify as a "dangerous dog", the list goes on and will grow as each person who has a vestid interest will make sure they can get their hand in the pockets.

Talk about media exposure! That was also a topic I wrote about on my letter to Senator Speier and Congressman Mullin. It's pit bull hysteria in Northern California and the media enjoys the "bully tactics" (pardon the pun) and power to influence the masses. It's like Pavlov's Dog. Gone are the days when information was the key to good mass media.

I live in a very affluent county. I'm not affluent, but the county I live in is affluent. I posted this previously....we have a crazy sheriff who wants to create an ordinance to "shoot at sight" any pit bull that is seen roaming around. First, I don't believe our county has a pit bull problem. Second, that's inhumane. Racoons, Mountain Lions and Coyotes would have more humane rights in my county. Third, first Pits, next Chows. What I envision is an incident similiar to the one back in Tennessee. Do you all remember the story back at the old site where a family's senior chow got confused, wondered out its home and to the nearby park. It sat down watching I think it was kids playing. The police there shot it at site. When its owner came home from filing the lost/missing pet papers at their humane society. They turned the TV on and saw their family pet on the news being shot by the policeman. So this sheriff is right on cue with the media hysteria. Election season must be coming up!

Bills like this gives free reign for those to discriminate and eliminate. It's not a pit bull specific ban. It's open to all canines. And as previously mentioned before, what is prohibited in America is bound to go underground. The Denver ban is already exporting their pits to varied cities and states - good pet pits and bad pits alike.

I have to get off the soap box now. PB & Z want a snack.

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:47 am

Post by **Zhuyos mom** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:14 am

Sorry Jasper's Mom, but we'll just have to agree to disagree here. All forms of dialogue on this subject is good and from where I stand, we are not off base.

http://www.edba.org.au/myths.html

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:43 pm

I have heard alot about what shouldn't be done, but I haven't heard many ideas about what should be done. I don't think keeping all dogs separated and not allowing any socialisation is the answer that we are all looking for. Nor do I think the keeping the status quo is going to be acceptable for the majority of people in the country. Any ideas out there?

Jeff&Peks · Post by **Jeff&Peks** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:32 pm

I will second Lou's disagreement

The bill doesn't say Pit Bulls or dog owners it say's , what is considered dangerous dog behavior, Who makes that decision? There isn't a Chow in here that hasn't snapped at someone, Sheena snapped at the trainer, Pekoe and Mr. N. Snap at anyone that gets to close, Confucius went to jail for nicking a kid that didn't listen, all this in the law makers eye's is dangerous dog behavior yet all these Chows are owned by extreme over protective owners that never take there eyes off their Chows

As far as the shelters are concerned any dog over 35 lb. is dangerous, they will kill a Chow as soon as it walks through the door. In Oakland a Chow is listed as an aggressive dog no matter what the temperament so you pay extra for the license. Society has already deemed a Chow as a Dangerous breed so this law will affect us all.

Lou referred to an affluent neighborhood, The neighborhood you live in is what will save your Chows, Apparently they are only going after the less affluent neighborhoods in Denver so the ACLU has stepped in.

This is an us Vs them situation because them don't care what kind of owner you are, them only thinks breed. and where you live.

Juniper · Post by **Juniper** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:52 pm

I third Lou's disagreement.

Mmmmm. suggestions? I don't know how this will go over but I would like mandatory training of would-be owners of pets when they purchase or license an animal. They would need to sign up and pay for, in advance, for a specific workshop with weekly training for say 10 weeks and if the training was not done within a certain period of time or they did not attend the class within the first two weeks, they would need to relinquish the pet and pay a fine to the city for non-attendance.

But then I would like this for would-be parents of human beings as well.

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:51 am

Post by **Zhuyos mom** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:07 pm

What state do you live? Are you a Californian? Just wondering.

Additionally, I stand by the policy of our humane society. Below is a statement released to the media (permission to cross post). By the way, I forgot to mention that that same County Sheriff that wanted to make a shoot at site ordinance also wanted all American Staffordshire Terriors (Pit Bulls) in shelters or surrendered to shelters be euthanized and not allowed to go for adoption (no matter if they pass behavioral exams):

This past week, in the wake of the tragic dog mauling in San Francisco, the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA has fielded dozens of media inquires. And, while we’re horrified by the events like everyone else, we were pleased to have been such a significant resource for media throughout the Bay Area, including San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Spanish-language outlets. Dozens of reporters from print and broadcast media have asked for our perspective with hopes of making some sense of this tragedy. We cannot. There aren’t words to express our sorrow for the grieving family or to help explain why the dog or dogs did what they did.

In the midst of the media’s examination, we’ve heard from a few animal supporters. And, knowing that one vocal person represents several others, we’ve taken seriously each response. Two come to mind. One supporter sent us a donation and directed the gift toward “our good work and care for pit bulls.” Another cancelled her PHS/SPCA membership, after making mention of what she read about our response to the San Francisco tragedy and our policy regarding the confusing breed.

To clarify this policy for the Daily Journal readers, we currently make some pit bulls and pit mixes available for adoption only after careful evaluation by highly skilled staff. For interested adopters, we make obedience classes and a pre-adoption home check mandatory. With regard to the latter, our officer will examine the potential adopter’s yard to make sure fencing and gates are adequate and secure. This approach, we know, is as difficult to understand for those people who feel every pit bull should be euthanized as it is for others who believe every pit bull should be given a second chance. We believe our approach is as “right” as it could possibly be.

Instead of searching for answers we will not likely find, our management team has focused instead on what we will do, going forward, to better address the pit bull problem. Mandating new regulations and restrictions specific to the breed, we felt, would be challenging. In San Francisco, this approach is simpler as the city and County are one. In San Mateo County, we would have to have all 20 cities agree on new mandates, figure a way to fund mandates and enforce mandates. In addition, our reading of California State Law tells us that any such attempts at local mandates are currently illegal, as current statutes explicitly prohibit regulations that are “specific as to breed” (California Food and Agriculture Code 31683).

Instead, PHS/SPCA will add, in a truly meaningful way, to current programs and services which make us a humane society and not a pound. Knowing that altered dogs are better behaved and much less likely to bite and act aggressively, we are now offering San Mateo County residents something better than a free “fix.” We’ll give them $10 on top of the free surgery when they alter their pit or pit mix at our clinic. We are actually going to pay people to have their pits or pit mixes fixed. Although we’re not entirely sure how we will fund this change in service, we believe that the cost is in fact a small price to guarantee that a number of pit bulls will not reproduce and will be less likely to act aggressively.

And, in the coming months, our staff who are knowledgeable about the breed, will offer free workshops for pit and pit mix owners. We will help people better understand an often misunderstood and mishandled breed.

These new measures are in addition to what we’ve offered for years:
a free Behavior Helpline (available in English and Spanish) through which we help people read their dogs’ warnings signs; classroom presentations throughout the County where our volunteers teach schoolchildren what it means to be humane, how to be safe around a family dog or stray, and what to do if attacked; and periodic workshops on “Dog Safety for Children”.

The Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA will continue offering compassion for all and a second chance for some stray, neglected and owner-surrendered pit bulls while being ever mindful of public safety and education. For a humane society, one consideration does not outweigh the other. Both are essential.

Let's go off base, analogy... California's state law on mandatory car insurance AND drivers license while driving. Still to date, far too many fatal car accidents happen and often those who cause it neither have auto insurance or the documentation to drive. How many drunk drivers have killed on the road? Probably far more than dog bite/maulling incidents. How many of those drivers have a suspended license? Our "lawmakers" created state law to safeguard it's citizens from those unreasonable people. Driving a car is a priviledge too. Not a right. Yet, the state law has yet to deter those who are irresponsilbe and unreasonable to do what is right. Those whose jobs are to enforce the law, Police and CHP officers, are often too late to prevent the tragedies. So what makes you think that to change our state's non-breed specific law is going to take the hurt away when a law for a "priviledge" that is far more vast, and kills far more people at a time can't be respected by those that are "unreasonable" and is hard to enforce. Why do are these "unreasonable" people allowed to even purchase a car, own a car? My friend's handicapped brother was killed crossing the street by a car driver. His body flew a little over a hundred feet from impact. We buried him and grieved. The driver had a license but he didn't have it with him. He didn't go to jail. Didn't even have to go to court. Just a ticket to show proof of license. Why you think that the lawmakers are better equipped to take control, prevent and eliminate hurt by changing a law for a "priviledge" is naive. "Me, me, mine" is what our modern society has become. No law created or ammended by lawmakers can change it. It's human behavior. And as Elaina mentioned, "Bans have a tendency, in this country (US), to take that very item you're banning underground. When a banned item goes underground, it becomes worse, even deadly..."

Sorry for the long post.

Happy 4th!

Jeff&Peks · Post by **Jeff&Peks** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:21 pm

I guess Jasper doesn't get out much.
I walk Pekoe on the beach every night, in the past 3 days hundreds of people have been coming into town staying at the beach front rentals for 4th of July. As I'm walking Pekoe past all these hundreds of people its like I'm the town terror, Pekos isn't paying any attention to anyone but as I pass I hear whispers and comments all up and down the beach, Those Chows are killers, you can't trust those Chows, I Know people that have been attacked by Chows for no reason, all Chows are mean and should be locked up at home. This is what the general public thinks about Jasper. So you go vote for the banning law and let the law makers do their job and lets see if they care if Jasper has never snapped at anyone.
And just because the Chows that I mentioned have snapped at people that doesn't mean these Chows have any sort of behavioral problems.
The End, no more comments on this subject from me.

Post by **Zhuyos mom** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:09 pm

I second you on that, Jeff! After my long post... no more comments from me too on this subject. FINI

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:25 am

Juniper · Post by **Juniper** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:05 pm

You apparently have not done your research on the internet if you think for one moment that Chows are not included as "dangerous dogs," and will not be targeted.

Here's a research assignment: do a search on dangerous dogs. What comes up? The following are the dogs that are targeted.

“Dangerous Dog” classifications can go further than the American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bull mixes, Japanese Tosa, Argentinian and Brazilian Fighting dogs. Included among the dangerous are Rottweiler, Chow-Chow, American Staffordshire Terriers, Boxers, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinscher, Australian Cattle dog, Siberian Husky, Newfoundland, Akitas, Alaskan Malamute, Great Dane, St. Bernard, Wolf hybrids, and the list will probably go further. Hmmmm, I think I see Chow-Chow in there, huh?

Lots more die or get injured from vehicle accidents - good analogy - need to place things in true perspective on planet earth.

…The total number of people killed in U.S. highway crashes in 2000=41,945; 2001= 42,116; 2003=42,643…hmmm, looks like it is increasing.

“Alcohol-related deaths remained unchanged at 40 percent of all fatalities.” From "2001 Early Assessment: Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatality and Injury Estimates for 2001," April 2002, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Go figure and if you’d done your research on repeat offenders you’d find there’s plenty of ‘em. MADD was started in 1980 - not making much of a dent that I can see in this time period. Your opinions appear to based on hearsay from officers instead of hardcore statistics relating to 60's & 70's. Generalizations don't hold water with me.

"FATAL DOG ATTACKS" The Stories Behind the Statistics
An Investigative Study into the Circumstances Surrounding Dog-Bite Related Human Fatalities from 1965 through the Present.
by Karen Delise

“It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally unusual event. Approximating 20 deaths per year in a dog population of 53 million yields an infinitesimal percent of the dog population (.0000004%) involved in a human fatality.

"From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide).”

Now let’s see, in the U.S., 20 deaths by dogs yearly versus 42,643 by vehicular accidents – I’d say the analogy is a good one. Making brouhaha about dogs is ridiculous; it’s the people’s behavior one needs to make brouhaha about! And, if you want to talk injuries, the difference is just as large.

I am against breed specific legislation and am very concerned about the passing of this bill. My viewpoint is that it is the owners who are at fault and not the breed. A New Mexico organization called Animal Protection Voters has the sane solution: http://www.apvnm.org/2005_legislati.../fact_sheet.php

I hope this legislation doesn't hit the "Downtown core of large urban center" that you're from. That would be a very harsh reality for you indeed. For some reason you refuse to state what city that is, upon a direct question from Lou; I find this odd.

Being a born and bred New Yorker, I'm going to be my blunt New York self. If you haven’t done the research, please don’t take our time with talking in generalizations and hearsay on this topic. Also, I don't trust or believe what a person says if they cannot disclose where they are from on a direct question. Tells me you're hiding, possibly telling some fibs, don't want to be found out, which is your prerogative, of course, but don’t expect honest, open people to respond to you very favorably. I’m a cards-up on the table kind of person.

I'm glad that you have such a gentle Chow as Jasper, but she sounds more like a lap dog rather than a Chow. I wonder if she would be "immune" to defending you if someone were to assault you? No need to answer this question unless you have some real actual event that occurred.

If your intentions are honorable and it's just that you haven't learned to be totally out there, without secrecy, or without speaking in generalizations, now's a good time to take the step towards transformation.

So if Jeff and Lou have politely discontinued conversing they are definitely more polite than I care to be at this moment.

Jennifer

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:16 pm

Most of the posts I've read here have been pretty generalized, that seems to be the accepted norm. Mostly anedoctal information, etc. People sharing ideas and stories about their pets. Everything I have said has been conversational in nature, I didn't know I would be expected to defend every point like a PHD thesis. But I stand by the few real points that I have made.

1)Chows are not dangerous in and of themselves. (Maybe in New York they are because of the self professed aggressive nature of the people raising them? I don't know)

2) It is not an US vs. Them issue - We all need to work together for the betterment of our commuities. (If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.)

These certainly are not radical ideas, and I have a hard time understanding why they would raise anyone's ire.

I have not stated that any breeds should be banned. The closest I've come is suggesting that communities should be able limit the breeding of certain types of dogs in their boundaries.

I choose not to share where I live because it is my right not to do so and because it is irrelevant. I find it objectionable that someone would try and bully me into disclosing information that I have decided not to share.

I find it bizarre that someone is afraid that their dog is going to be banned because it is considered a dangerous breed, but then get all puffed up with "my chow is tougher than your chow" garbage. Shouldn't all chows be lap dogs? That would solve alot of the problems. I would never purposely put my dog in the position of having to defend me, it is my responsibility to protect her. I would never want her to become injured or traumatized by an altercation, she has already been through enough.

I knew the driving laws analogy was a red herring (has nothing to do with the topic and distracts from the real issues). Facts and figures are great, I'm sure I could debate each one, if I thought that was important. The fact is, it isn't important, the facts you brought up are actually quite irrelevant. What is important that we all feel safe in our communities, and we all contribute in a way that enhances that objective.

Someone said that everyone's ideas and opinions should be heard here, I guess that only applies if you agree with certain ideas, otherwise you risk being insulted, and having your chow be insulted by a forum bully. It is called a democracy, get over it, I am not intimidated. I, like my chow, stand my ground with dignity.

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:18 pm

Elaina · Post by **Elaina** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:57 pm

I still believe that to ban an entire breed simply because of the stupidity of some owners is not a wise and good solution. It is human owner error, ignorance, and immaturity that causes almost all pit bull and dangerous dog problems. In the past, when a breed has had charateristics that were desired/not desired, those charateristics were bred in or out. It didn't matter whether it was appearance, speed, sight, or temperment. Maybe this is a long-term answer for the pit. No, I don't agree with a ban on breeding either. Serious and concentious pit bull lovers should be allowed to better the breed. However, humans are humans, and some of us don't have a clue on how to raise or train dogs or chows. Those of us who don't and those of us who don't, but think they do, are the reason that the pit, as well as other dogs, are deemed "dangerous".

When we walk our Chows in the neighborhood park, we encounter many breeds and their owners. These are people who love their dogs and Chows. These companions are trained (both 2 and 4 footers), and for the most part, everyone follows the rules of dog walking. Many of these people have pit bulls and they are just as friendly as any non-dangerous breed. Only once have we had a problem and it was due to an irresponsible human owner.

Should all Chows be lap dogs? No. My husband and I chose the Chow because of its beauty, its independence, its pride in itself, and yes...its guarding ability. Not that some "lap" dogs don't have these same qualities, but they are not Chows! There are other qualities that made us choose a Chow, but being a lap dog was not one of them!

Elaina, Max-A-Million, and Mahayana

Juniper · Post by **Juniper** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:59 pm

Dear Owner of Jasper:

The following is my response to your post - be prepared - it's lengthy, since I included your posts within it.

1)Chows are not dangerous in and of themselves. (Maybe in New York they are because of the self professed aggressive nature of the people raising them? I don't know)

Common sense and research tells you that ALL dogs have the potential and capability to be dangerous, large or small, doesn’t matter. That’s why they need training and even then there is no certainty. And anyone who believes they have total control over an animal is a fool. (Have you noticed that I’m located in Sacramento, CA in my avatar? I have no idea how the Chows are in N.Y., never saw one there.)

2) It is not an US vs. Them issue - We all need to work together for the betterment of our commuities. (If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.)

This is more than once you’ve brought up this US vs. Them issue. Appears to me that this is where you are coming from, not the other persons commenting on this issue. I can see how refusal to do one’s research before expressing an opinion can create this perspective. And yes, I do indeed believe that persons should perform Ph.D Thesis, thought prior to expressing an opinion, just as our Senators and Congressmen do, in the passing of ANY legislation. The purpose of research is not to defend one’s self, as you put it, but to be absolutely certain that all the statistics and facts to the best of one’s capability have been reviewed before reaching that opinion and expressing it.

I’ll agree with you on this point, we need to all work together. However, if people are not well-versed & well-researched then they’re trying to create solutions with half, or nearly empty cups, not enough ingredients and it creates an even bigger problem, not a solution.

I have not stated that any breeds should be banned. The closest I've come is suggesting that communities should be able limit the breeding of certain types of dogs in their boundaries.

I am pro-animals, pro-dogs, and not just pro-Chow. It’s important to read about breed specific legislation and the ramifications it entails. It is different than ban breed legislation but still not a good solution.

I choose not to share where I live because it is my right not to do so and because it is irrelevant. I find it objectionable that someone would try and bully me into disclosing information that I have decided not to share.

I said it was ”your prerogative” to not disclose where you are from. I guess you didn’t hear, read or see that, and decided to take it as a bullying issue. I just told you what to expect from me or others when one is secretive. My assertiveness is apparently taken as aggressiveness on your part.

I find it bizarre that someone is afraid that their dog is going to be banned because it is considered a dangerous breed, but then get all puffed up with "my chow is tougher than your chow" garbage.

You are way off mark if you think fear is the issue. The creation of complacency through a false sense of safety is created among people as a result of excessive legislation. Legislation needs to be addressed towards dog/Chow owners not the pets. Dogs are not the problem. People are the problem. And responsibility should be placed where responsibility actually rests-on the pet-owners.

I never implied or stated anything about my Chow being “tougher than your Chow.” That’s just your antagonism showing. Maybe you don’t like the idea of your Chow being called a lap dog. Or maybe you never looked at it that way?

Shouldn't all chows be lap dogs? That would solve alot of the problems.

There would be a lot more euthanized animals if that ever happened! I stated I was glad that you had a gentle Chow as Jasper. However, I think it is a travesty to alter a dog so much away from its natural behaviors that it becomes a lap dog. After all, a dog’s main purpose, if you do your research, is to serve and protect the pack leader and its family and if you take that away, well, it’s not really a dog anymore. You’ve created a new species of dog, maybe it should be called catdog. I’m into animal rights, non-alteration of a species. Just enough training to protect others, so your dog knows what’s approved or not approved in a society, yet still maintains the majority of their innate uniqueness. After all, there are traits I like about Chows: non-neediness, independency, aloofness. All the behaviors that a lap dog would hardly possess. If the only species were catdogs or lap dogs, many people would never have rescued homeless dogs from the street and a lot more would have been euthanized.

I would never purposely put my dog in the position of having to defend me, it is my responsibility to protect her. I would never want her to become injured or traumatized by an altercation, she has already been through enough.

You must lead a very sheltered, protected life, or spend a lot of time looking through rose-colored glasses, if you think you can control any and all positions that you place your Chow in, whether it’s purposeful or not. I find it’s important for a Chow or any dog to know how to defend itself if attacked, however there are many dogs who will just stand there and not do anything to defend themselves and I find this to be a travesty. Somehow they’ve lost their doghood. Granted I would prefer to not ever be in that predicament but it really is not within our total control – stuff just happens – as it did to Jasper, unfortunately.

I knew the driving laws analogy was a red herring (has nothing to do with the topic and distracts from the real issues). Facts and figures are great, I'm sure I could debate each one, if I thought that was important. The fact is, it isn't important, the facts you brought up are actually quite irrelevant. What is important that we all feel safe in our communities, and we all contribute in a way that enhances that objective.

Apparently, pushing aside the car death statistics, you have difficulty looking at the dog statistics I’ve given. So, if there are only 20 deaths by dogs in the entire U.S. in any given year, how come you’re not feeling safe? Mind you there are 52 states in the U.S. and I don’t believe these 20 deaths are all occurring where you live, if any at all. Data and comparisons are important and it is one of the means the legislature uses to decide what issues to place their attention on. Unless some politician wants to instill fear in the public for their own political gain as Mayor Newsome has done in San Francisco, CA. Fear does rule the majority of people and thank goodness I am not one.

Someone said that everyone's ideas and opinions should be heard here, I guess that only applies if you agree with certain ideas, otherwise you risk being insulted, and having your chow be insulted by a forum bully. It is called a democracy, get over it, I am not intimidated. I, like my chow, stand my ground with dignity.

I’m all in favor of everyone expressing their ideas. But when you say that this site is based on generalizations, I think you need to get a dictionary. This site is based on actual personal experiences and I don’t particularly enjoy telling you that you don’t know the difference. And a Ph.D. Thesis is not needed to express actual experience.

However, when it comes to a discussion of legislation one should only deal in facts and do their research. Your carelessness in expressing your opinions makes me very concerned. It is one’s social responsibility to do their research before you place information on a public web site. There are too many young or uneducated minds who can be influenced, take what you say as fact, without any basis, and do not learn to do there own statistical research. Or maybe that is your intent?

I found through your responses that you have been intimidated, have uncertainties about your Chow and need to look up democracy in the dictionary. Insulted by my calling your Chow a lap dog? Yet by your own words you feel “that would solve a lot of the problems.” I believe you are very confused and need to do some research and sort out what your opinions really are.

On this legislation issue, I find your responses very narrow-minded and close-minded, especially when it comes to doing any research and to continue having dignity in not doing so. Unfortunately, one goes down with ”the ship of no knowledge” and there is definitely no dignity there. It would behoove one to keep searching and looking for the best possible solution for the greatest number of people, not the fewest. A good philosophy to live by: Even when one thinks they have done all the research they can there is always more research to do and there's a social responsibility to do it.

P.S. The link for "Animal Protection Voter," which I placed in my prior post, somehow changed its contents recently. I'll look for the exact info I wanted everyone to read and post later for everyone's convenience.

Jennifer

Jeff&Peks · Post by **Jeff&Peks** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:05 pm

Just to point out one contradiction when you say you have trained Jasper to be well socialized and a delight to the public.
-------------------------------------
Being touched by strangers makes her uncomfortable and some people have a hard time understanding this, people find this difficult because they just want to hug her and pat her.
That is probably the most challenging aspect of being with her is all the attention that she gets, and limiting the people that try and touch her. She asks for so little, I feel that I should do my best to accomodate her in this matter, rather than forcing her to accept strangers in her little bubble, people can get within about three inches of her face before she moves away, but a I try and give her more of a bubble than that,so she doesn't feel she has to move away.
---------------------------------------
Welcome to the Chow owners world.
Like I said a Chow is a Chow no matter how much socialization you try and force on them..
What will happen when out of no where, by surprise some kid or stranger enters that 3 inch bubble If you think Jasper will just bow her head and turn away, someone is fooling someone. Good to see that Jasper is still trying to maintain her Chowhood.

You do know that strangers not being able to touch her and having to stay 3 inches from her is an instant death sentence at any animal shelter and looked at by the law makers as dangerous dog behavior?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:28 am

Ok - now your guys are just being rude and argumentative. I thought you weren't going to comment on this subject any more? You must have way more time on your hands than I do to think up these long and rambling responses. There is obviously nothing that I could say that you would respond rationally to. You have both made contradictory and factual errors in your posts, but have I felt the need to throw it back at you and then poke you with a stick, no I have not. Where I come from, doing that to people you don't even know is considered rude and boorish behavior. I came here as a guest to share chow stories and perhaps present an alternative point of view, not be berrated. Why don't you go pack up on someone else. I have certainly tired of your immature rantings, and am not going to stoop to your level. Good luck convincing the average person of your point of view with your bad behavior, you are going to have to do alot better if you want to win people over to your point of view. You are fighting a losing battle, maybe that is why you come across as so desparate. Please feel free to ignore me, as I know I will you two.