gooeydog

If you want to keep the bag around and not have her freak everytime she sees it, you can slowly desensitize her to it, the same as you would with a dog that was afraid of a broom, vacuum, or a certain room of the house. Start with it far away from the feeding area, and just pretend it's not even there (if you expect her to react, she's that much more likely to do so). When you feed her, feed her as close to it as you can without her carrying on and not eating. The next morning, move the bag closer to the feeding area (you may not want her to watch this :wink: ), and again, ignore it. Feed her in the same place as you did the night before, but the bag will be closer since you moved it already. Next day, same routine. Keep doing this until you have the bag hanging/laying right beside the bowl and her eating out of it. If at any point, she refuses to go to the food bowl because of the bag, you can either ignore her reaction (if she gets hungry enough, she'll brave it and eat) or get her out of the room, move the bag further back, wait a while (1/2 hr or so), then let her back in. You don't want to just move the bag while she's standing there, or she might get it into her head that if she throws down a little defensive show, you make the scary thing go away. If she does hesitate for a while before going to eat, don't move the bag the next day, wait until she's comfortable with it at that distance before moving it again. You can also leave tasty treats on the bag to entice her to check it out (it might take her days if she's afraid enough, though). All that obedience work you've been doing with her could be a big help, too. Put the bag out in the middle of the yard, bring her out on leash. Start at a distance, working through various commands, and move closer as she becomes comfortable with the bag at whatever distance it is from her. Try to keep her focused on you so she doesn't have a chance to act out. Don't work her to the point where she's frustrated or tired of doing it. Keep it fun, maybe only 15-20 minute sessions, 2 or 3 times a day. It's probably a lot easier to just keep the bag where Lily can't see it, but if you decide you want to work through her fear, it could most likely be done with time and patience :wink:

Not only does there seem to be discrepencies over where the parents were/what they were doing, it looks like they're not even sure the dog bit the baby.... (this is an article that was posted on another board, read what I made bold in the 7th paragraph) By Jessica Valdez and Alec MacGillis Sun Staff Originally published August 9, 2003 A 2-week-old Brooklyn infant was killed yesterday by his family's pit bull after the baby's parents stepped outside and left him alone in their house with the dog, police said. Responding to the incident at 3:15 p.m. in the 4200 block of Audrey Ave., police found the dog loose in the street and shot it, firing multiple times to make sure it was dead, witnesses said. The child's death and the shooting shocked a neighborhood where residents said they had not had any problems with the dog. Neighbors identified the baby as Terry Allen Jr. He was lying in a swing on the second floor of his family's rowhouse when he was killed, neighbors said. Tonya Everhart, a friend and co-worker of the baby's mother, Stacie Morgridge, said the baby's parents left the infant alone briefly while they stepped outside to smoke cigarettes. "They don't smoke around the baby," Everhart said. When Morgridge and her 29-year-old boyfriend, Terry Allen - the father of the child - went back inside, they found the swing knocked over and the baby [b]lying on the floor looking blue and limp but not mauled[/b], said Everhart, who works with Morgridge at the nearby Charlie Ward convenience store. The baby, who went by the nickname "T.J.," was rushed to Harbor Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Police spokeswoman Nicole Monroe confirmed that the parents were on their front porch at the time of the attack but said police aren't sure what they were doing there. Monroe said that no criminal charges have been brought against either parent but that that has not been ruled out. "At this point, no one has been charged. The investigation is ongoing," Monroe said. "Of course we're not ruling anything out. The detectives are being open-minded." The dog bit the baby "multiple times," Monroe said. Neighbors who spoke with the parents speculated last night that the baby might have died because of being knocked out of the swing. "The dog didn't intentionally hurt the child," said Michele Schmidt, who lives across the street. After calling 911, Everhart said, the baby's parents chained the dog in the front yard, but she said the dog broke loose and jumped the fence. When police arrived, Monroe said, the dog was roaming the street. Police shot it because they were worried it might jump into nearby yards where residents had gathered to watch. "The dog was shot and killed because he posed a threat to everyone in the neighborhood," she said. "Children were out, and we didn't want it to get into yards where people were standing." In the shooting, some bullet fragments smashed through a nearby car window. The breaking glass injured one of the car's occupants, who was treated at the scene. Some neighbors watching the shooting questioned whether police overreacted by shooting the dog multiple times, saying one shot would have sufficed. "It took five police and 15 to 20 [shots] to kill this dog," said John Pegram, who was moving furniture into his nearby business at the time of the shooting. "They're here to protect and serve, and then they endanger people's lives. It doesn't take five police to kill a dog." Added Cindy Shimel, a 10-year-old who lives across the street, "It was down on the ground, and they still kept on shooting for no reason." Neighbors said the dog, who they thought went by the name "Jigga," lived inside the house and had never shown signs of viciousness. They said they often saw Morgridge, who was well known in the neighborhood, walk the dog around the block. "He was the nicest dog in the neighborhood," said Cindy Shimel. Neighbors estimated the dog's age to be about 7. Several said Morgridge had reported that the dog had appeared out of sorts since the baby was born. Three hours after the shooting, the dog's carcass still lay in the middle of the street. The child's death occurs roughly two years after the City Council narrowly defeated a bill to ban the city's estimated 6,000 pit bulls, a proposal prompted by a string of non-fatal dog attacks on children. City health officials said then that the Bureau of Animal Control lacked the resources to enforce a ban. "We oppose this," Baltimore Health Commissioner Peter L. Beilenson said at the time. "We don't have the staff. If we pick up an animal, proving it is a pit bull is difficult." Last year, the council passed a less stringent law to rein in violent dogs, a requirement that all cat and dog owners purchase a license for their pets and tag them with a tiny microchip implant that would make it easier for animal control officers to identify and seize violent dogs. Anthony Bradford, director of the Bureau of Animal Control, said yesterday that he was unsure how many dogs have been licensed or seized under the new law. About 1,000 dog bites are reported to the city Health Department each year, about 30 percent of them by pit bulls. But they are rarely fatal. In 1994, a baby was mauled to death in an East Baltimore apartment when its mother visited a friend who was keeping her incarcerated boyfriend's pit bull. In 1985, a 57-year-old Edgemere woman was killed by her pit bull terriers. Nationally, about 10 people a year are killed by dogs, most of them either by pit bulls or Rottweilers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several jurisdictions have passed or considered bans on pit bulls. At the same time, several cities and counties that have passed bans have encountered difficulties. In 2000, Cincinnati repealed a 13-year ban on pit bulls because the city was spending $200,000 a year to seize and euthanize less than 20 percent of the city's pit bulls, most of which had never bitten anyone. Sun researcher Elizabeth Lukes contributed to this report. Copyright

All the same story, but apparently there were some discrepancies(sp?) as to why the parents went downstairs. [url]http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.pitbull10aug10,0,6782447.story?coll=bal-local-headlines[/url] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/08/09/fatal.dog.attack.ap/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2392849/detail.html[/url] [url]http://wjz.com/localstories/local_story_221091502.html[/url]

[quote]I'M NOT HAPPY... they didnt have either Labs or Goldens in this test.... are they assuming that Labs and Goldens are SOOOOO docile they dont need the test?????[/quote] Relax :lol: They have both labs AND goldens on the test stats page... Goldens are here: [url]http://atts.org/stats4.html[/url] (82.5% pass rate) Labs are here: [url]http://atts.org/stats5.html[/url] 90.6% (pass rate) I do agree though that the stats aren't the most accurate way of telling the temperament of an entire breed... how many people are going to test a dog they KNOW will fail? Now, if it was a mandatory thing with the breed clubs, or needed for registration, showing, something like that, then it would be a much better guage of the temperament of an entire breed. I still think that for most of the breeds with a high number of dogs tested (over 200), the stats are fairly accurate.

lol :lol: Another quote off the site (page: [url]http://www.realpitbull.com/ownership.html[/url] ) you posted for me (bold is my emphasis): "[b]Do not get a Pit Bull if you are not prepared to deal with animal-related aggression[/b]. Pit Bulls are normally very aggressive towards other dogs and small animals. Early training and socialization helps to curb this tendency, but there is [b]no "fix" for a dog that is predisposed to aggression towards other animals[/b]. [b]If you are of the type who likes to have a dog that will mingle peacefully with other dogs, visit the off-leash dog park, etc., the Pit Bull is not for you.[/b] Also consider the ramifications of bringing home an animal aggressive breed if you already have pets. At the very least you should be prepared to keep the Pit Bull seperated from the other animals when you are not around to supervise." and "Well, raising a pup with your other pets and/or children, training him "right" and so on, can all have a very positive effect on the pup's behavior as an adult. However, in the end, your dog is [b]only as good as his genetic makeup[/b]. A dog with good genetic makeup will end up safe, sound and stable with healthy environmental help, and sometimes despite a bad environment (which many an abused/neglected rescue dog has shown). A dog with bad genetic makeup will always have bad genetic makeup, and despite the best efforts to raise and train him properly, an owner will always be fighting an uphill battle. In some cases, [b]all the training and love in the world cannot overcome a dog's genetic behaviorial influences[/b]. This is [b]important to remember when we're talking about Pit Bulls since, as a whole, the breed is genetically animal aggressive (this sort of aggression is considered very normal in the breed)[/b]." Also note the link "pit bulls and dog parks don't mix!" on the homepage of the site.... might want to find something a bit more geared towards your own argument next time :lol: [url]http://www.realpitbull.com/parks.html[/url] About APBTs and dog shows... A dog show is a completely different setting from an offleash park... at shows, dogs are kept crated or in their own areas pretty much all the time that they aren't showing, and on lead when in the ring. MOST dog aggressive dogs can be taught to mind their own business around other dogs when on-leash, though it's often a different story when they're no longer restrained. So there's very little correlation between dog aggression and being able to show. In addition, some show venues (ADBA comes to mind as one) allow even extremely dog aggressive dogs to be shown, and there will sometimes be dogs that scream, lunge at other dogs, etc participating in the shows. And actually, neither of the APBTs supposed component breeds still exists in the same form today as during the breed's conception... bulldogs have undergone many changes in temperament and physical characteristics since they were crossed to make the APBT (and according to some breed enthusiasts, the old "bulldog" IS the modern APBT). The breed most commonly said to have been mixed with bulldog to make the APBT- the White English Terrier- is now extinct. Of course, you could just assume that it was like most terrier breeds... bold dogs with high prey/hunting drive, who were often dog aggressive as well... as is cited by the AKC themselves: "[b]Terriers typically have little tolerance for other animals, including other dogs[/b]." ( [url]http://akc.org/breeds/recbreeds/terriers.cfm[/url] ). Your arguments are more than a bit flawed :lol:

This is off the UKC site ( [url]http://www.UKCdogs.org[/url] ) , on the APBT page (and I would hope that you believe they know the characteristics of a breed they recognize): "[u]Characteristics [/u] The essential characteristics of the American Pit Bull Terrier are strength, confidence, and zest for life. This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. [b]APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children[/b]. Because [b]most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression [/b]and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed's natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work. The American Pit Bull Terrier has always been capable of doing a wide variety of jobs so exaggerations or faults should be penalized in proportion to how much they interfere with the dog's versatility. " and "Note: Although [b]some level of dog aggression is characteristic of this breed[/b], handlers will be expected to comply with U.K.C. policy regarding dog temperament at U.K.C. events. " And here's something else that should satisfy your craving for proof (not going to C&P, you can go to the link if you're really that interested in it)... [url]http://americanpitbullterrier.org/apbt_genetics.htm[/url] Pay special attention to the "What seperates the APBT from the German Shepherd" section and the "The first step of the primer on genetics" section. The rest is also very good at describing how traits are passed on, and it appears that there will eventually be something on there addressing "the genetics of temperament and aggression".

[quote name='THE BIG GUEST']SINCE SOME OF YOU CANNOT CONTROL YOUR PITBULL'S BEHAVIOR THROUGH PROPER TRAINING, YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THOSE OUT THERE THAT EXPLOIT THIS MAGNIFCANT DOG'S POWER AND USE IT TO ENDANGER PEOPLE AND OTHER DOGS. CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL IS WHAT IS NEEDED HERE. IF YOUR PIT IS DOG AGRESSIVE THEN IT IS UN-TRAINED AND YOU HAVE MADE THE PIT NO BETTER THAN WHAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC TGHINKS ALREADY. YOU HAVE REINFORCED THE SCAR PITS HAVE ON SOCIETY. WHICH PUTS YOUR UN-TRAINED AGRESSIVE PIT IN THE VERY SAME CATAGORY AS THE DRUG DEALER'S PITBULLS IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S EYES. HOW VERY SAD AND TEARFUL FOR THIS WONDERFUL BREED.[/quote] Ahh, yes... My pit bulls are SOOO out of control and untrained that one (dog aggressive, too) has been invited to be in a commercial for the training school we've been going to classes at. Not to mention the demonstration she was in at a fair that took place over the 4th of July weekend... hundreds of people watching who came up to visit with her afterwards, tons of positive PR. What do you do with YOUR dogs? (Aside from endangering the breed's image, your own dogs, and other peoples' pets by refusing to take precautions that should be taken with the breed of dog you've chosen to own.) What have YOU done to change the public's perception of this breed? I'm sure that with such well trained, well behaved, under control dogs, and such a competent owner, it should be NO problem whatsoever to get a couple obedience titles, a therapy dog certification, or even just a CGC or TT certification.... let's see it.

You manage to find ONE source of information written by someone who has who knows how much experience with the breed to back up your opinion... and expect people to ignore the HUNDREDS of sources from CREDIBLE sources that say differently. How many pit bulls have these people rescued? Owned from puppyhood into adulthood (at least age 3)? Trained, even? Here's some of the sources I was referring to: A page written by an ACO who's titled multiple pit bulls in various sports, and has been involved in the breed for years.... [url]http://www.workingpitbull.com/aboutpits.htm[/url] Another by BADRAP (they've rescued hundreds of "pit bulls", and do numerous breed education programs) [url]http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm[/url] And one on dogparks... [url]http://www.badrap.org/rescue/dogpark.cfm[/url] Another page on a good APBT info site written by people with years of APBT ownership (the middle part describes what happened during a fight, so some may want to avoid it, but the top few paragraphs and the stuff in the pink box is good)... [url]http://www.realpitbull.com/fight.html[/url] More... [url]http://www.realpitbull.com/agg.html[/url] A post on another board describing what happened to a pit bull who got into a minor scuffle at a dogpark... [url]http://pub177.ezboard.com/fdogcommunityfrm1.showMessage?topicID=3908.topic[/url]

[quote]Behaviour is inherited and therefore predictable by breed. NO! Behaviour is a product of genes interacting with environment & environmental experiences during development of a puppy shape the brain and its connections-then there is learning on top of that .If a developing behaviour (even a genetic one) isn't reinforced, it will fade away or be modified into a different form .In the end, environment is critical-consider teaching a pup not to jump, by ignoring and redirecting it-or why is not every APBT aggressive if this trait is caused totally by inheritance-or why can a rescued fight APBT be retrained and rehomed![quote] The problem with this is that they fail to add that for the APBT, fighting is a self rewarding activity. The fight itself IS the reinforcement. With a jumping puppy, you CAN take away the positive aspect of it (the attention they get), with a pit bull fighting, you CAN'T. It also appears that they don't have the best grasp of genetic inheritance (though I guess I'm not one to talk, either :lol: ), as they should know that there is no guarantee that if a trait is present in one dog, that that dog's offspring will posess the same trait, maybe not even if both parents carry for it. Sometimes things can be hidden in a line of dogs for YEARS, then just "pop up" when a certain cross is made.... only to disappear again when the product of that cross is bred. It's not always as simple as crossing X and Z to get Y... On the subject of "retraining" dogs that have been used for fighting... it should also be noted that most of the "priveledged few" who get this chance are fairly "cold" dogs anyway, and have little desire to pick a fight. Most ex-fighters are also placed in "only pet" homes. [quote]It is more common than not to hear "pit bulls" referred to as "dog-aggressive". In fact, they aren't. Some may become fearful around other dogs due to a lack of proper socialization. But this happens with all breeds of dogs, not just "pit bulls". Unfortunately, this lack of socialization is frequently encouraged by those who fancy themselves "pit bull" experts[/quote] I'd love to see these people explain then WHY there are APBTs out there who have been socialized since they were 8 weeks old (with as much socialization as possible in the breeder's home) that grow up to be mature APBTs who would merrily kill any dog they happened to come upon without their owners there to intervene... Also of interest to me is their explanation for those dogs who have been raised from birth to be fighters, and those who have been locked away, abused, etc, yet have NO interest whatsoever in other dogs. [quote]Citing the breed's history as a dog fighter, some people believe there is some kind of magic "dog fighting" gene or brain chemistry that is passed along from sire and dam to puppy. The truth is, there is no such thing. [/quote] Again, these kind of statements do not speak well of these peoples' knowledge of genetics... traits are not always passed on in a simple manner, which would could be why people who only look for obvious connections may miss more subtle, but eually important connections. Read some of the research on HD in dogs.... while no one knows yet exactly HOW it's passed on, it can be traced back through entire families of dogs. [quote]They give a warning before they attack, just like any other dog. Usually, if you see a Pit Bull Terrier that

[quote]If every Pitbull turns into an aggressive dog then how come they have one of the best temperaments of all breeds. How come they are used as therapy dogs????????????????[/quote] If you look at the ATTS site ( [url]http://atts.org[/url] ), for the components of the TT, you'll see that nowhere on the site does it say "dog will be turned loose with numerous other dogs, any sign of aggression will result in dog being failed"... in fact, according to the description of the test on the site, there aren't any dogs involved in the test itself. A quote from one therapy dog test (off the TDI site, [url]http://www.tdi-dog.org/[/url] ): "This test demonstrates that the dog can behave politely around other dogs. Two handlers and their dogs approach each other from a distance of about 10 yards, stop, shake hands and exchange pleasantries, and continue on for about 5 yards. The dogs should show no more than a casual interest in each other." With training, most dog aggressive dogs can be taught to control themselves well enough that they could easily pass this portion of the test, so that doesn't really speak much of the dogs' temperament. A therapy dog test is a completely different situation from a dog park... at the therapy dog test, both dogs would be restrained, under handler control, and not actually interacting with each other... at a dog park, it's the exact opposite. It's more than a bit surprising too that in all your research on the breed, you seem to have such a hard time grasping the difference between DOG aggression and human aggression... they ARE two completely different things, not even remotely connected. As has been stated by others, many dog aggressive dogs are extremely friendly to people. And most of the people who have posted have agreed that not EVERY pit bull will become dog aggressive, though I maintain my opinion that more DO than don't. Yes, your dogs could play happily with other dogs for all their lives... yes, I could get mowed over by a delivery truck tomorrow as I walk across the street (now, after saying that, I probably will :lol: ). There are NO certainties with dogs... we can do what we will with them; try to bend them to our ways and make them conform to what's "right"; but the fact remains that they are DOGS, and there will be times, when in all their dogliness, they will do what THEY want, ignoring our best attempts at making them follow the rules that we humans have set up as "right". Different dogs will have different inborn desires, that they will be more likely to follow if left to their own devices... hunters will hunt, herders will herd, fighters will fight. It's your job to be sure that, should they one day decide to be pit bulls, and go after another dog (for whatever reason), they are under your control. To forego such caution in the name of your own convenience and enjoyment (and possibly ignorance or subbornness), is nothing less than selfish and irresponsible.

This is part of the first post in this thread... [quote]Just dropping a line to say my 2 RED NOSE PITBULLS are still doing well at the lease free park. They are about a year and 4 months now. No fighting no nothing. It's all about training.[/quote] To me, it implies that because your two pups haven't gotten into a fight yet (and hey, they may never get into one if you're lucky), you think/thought that your training overrode any inborn desire they may (or may not) have to fight with other dogs. I just can't see someone who knows how quickly things can go from "good" to "bad" can still take their mature or maturing APBTs (or any bull breed) to the dogpark, saying "I'm careful" or "I watch them closely", or "they've been challenged, but I've trained them well, so they won't take up the offer". Have you ever seen or tried to break up a fight that involved a bull breed or two? All the training in the world will not be enough to stop them, because they won't even hear or see you.

[url]http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003311750,00.html[/url]

My comments weren't made to bash you OR your dogs.... as I've said before, you may be right about them, and they'll be among the minority of the breed, never showing the least bit of aggression to another dog. You say you know what can happen, then you say it won't if you've trained the dog right. That alone is a huge contradiction. There are thousands of "good", positive stories about pit bulls (some of whom are dog aggressive)... sadly, there are many more horror stories brought on by owners who either didn't know about, or refused to acknowledge the breed's innate characteristics until it was too late, and THOSE are the ones that are spread around the world, fueling BSL. Again, my comments on pit bulls weren't "negative", the chance of dog aggression in the breed is a well know FACT that most pit bull owners have come to live with... their dogs still live great lives and are often wonderful breed ambassadors. If people are so put off to the breed by the chance of dog aggression, there are other breeds out there that are less likely to have that trait. [/url]

100 yrs ago, there wasn't a veritable "witchhunt" if a pit bull hurt or killed someone elses dog. It wasn't that the dogs wouldn't fight, but that it wasn't looked upon as such a big deal if it did happen. In addition, a good number of those "ideal family dogs" you speak of WERE fighting dogs who had no problems at least scrapping with another dog, yet still made great pets. Training has NOTHING to do with whether or not a dog will become dog aggressive... if it did, then how would you explain the numerous obedience titled pit bulls that are also dog aggressive at some level. Several of these dogs' owners post on other boards/email lists I'm on, and quite a few have admitted that their dogs would definitely scrap with another dog, especially if challenged, if they weren't there to stop them. What does that say about the correlation between training and dog aggression? If you want to sit back and pretend it could never happen to you, or to your dogs, then that's fine. If it ever does, though... what will your excuse be then? There is a thread on another pit bull board that discusses "training" and fighting/dog aggression... you might be interested in reading it, though I'm sure you won't agree with what's been said on it. [url]http://pub177.ezboard.com/fdogcommunityfrm1.showMessage?topicID=3863.topic[/url] K, IMO, your situation is entirely different from the one Hollywood puts his dogs in... you have 5 dogs, all of which you have a good level of control over, and know well. You can most likely read each one extremely well, know their triggers, and would be able to get things under control before anything even happened if you did see signs of a problem. Hollywood takes his two (still intact, right?) dogs to a dogpark and lets them run around with a dozen or so unfamiliar (to both him and his dogs) dogs. He writes about how his dogs have been humped, snapped at, etc. That leads me to believe that he has very little control (if any at all) over the whole situation, and that to me is just a recipe for disaster.

I think if it were that simple, anti BSL people would be all over that kind of legislation.... but it's not. If the irresponsible breeders/owners aren't even capable of following simple laws that are in place now, what makes you think they would follow new regulations put on pit bulls and their owners? In addition.... obviously BSL itself hasn't done much to stop the problem... only drove the newly illegal dogs and their owners underground... so if that drastic of a measure hasn't gotten rid of the bad owners.... then why would simple restrictions do that? As is always the case, the people who abide by the rules will suffer (their dogs, too), and the ones responsible for the problems will continue on as they wish. Rather than passing new restrictions to punish responsible owners and their dogs, why not simply enforce the (more than adequate) generic dog laws already in effect? I'd bet that in 98% of places that are planning to or have passed BSL have these laws already... leash laws, dog licensing laws, and generic vicious dog laws (that proclaim a dog vicious after one incident of aggression, and place restrictions on dog/owner), among others. It seems that a good amount of dogs that cause problems are running loose.... the leash law would fix those cases. How many dogs that attack people are registered??? If they're not, then why haven't the owners already been fined and/or the dog(s) confiscated??? How many of the dogs have already had an incident of aggression? And if the government can't even enforce these simple laws (that are in effect now), why should we even think for a second that they could enforce a (much more complicated) law that involved various level of restriction for dog owners/breeders? I'd have few problems with soemthing like this if it would actually work, but otherwise it's just another step in legislating away my rights to own a dog of the breed I choose.

I think I may know what it was now... The other night we took Goo and Haley for a walk around the block, and some people stopped us to talk to my mom about Haley. They know her old owner, and were asking about how we got Haley, my mom told them that her owner hadn't been taking care of her, so she was ours now. I'm guessing her owner found out (she was probably still thinking of Haley as "hers", so now she's decided she wants back her "status symbol". She'd even seen us with Haley numerous times, never a flicker of interest until now. She'd already been down here this morning when I got up (ok, so I didn't get up until almost 3 in the afternoon :oops: ) and taken Hale out, so it seems like she is trying to prove something. I'm going to talk to Hale's trainer this weekend and see if he can't help me lay down some rules... like Hale not being offleash, etc. I'm hoping his opinion will have a little more weight than mine, so maybe my mom will listen to his advice.

I think a lot of the problems with flexis stems from people who haven't ever taught their dogs to behave on leash, and use the flexi as the "easy way out", never bothering to actually teach their dogs. Used sensibly, they can be a good tool. One reason I don't like them is that in order to "reel them in", you have to grab that skinny little cord, and if your dog is pulling towards something, you may end up getting your hand cut up by the cord. Or if they tangle someone else/their dog, they can cause cuts. I have seen flexis with a "flat" leash type line, but the ones with the cord are still on the market for people with untrained dogs to buy. The other thing that annoys me to no end are the people who put a GL on their dog, hook a flexi to it, then let their dog run around. I have used a flexi when we took Annie swimming at a nearby park.... they have strict leash rules, but she needs room to be able to swim, and I didn't want the long line getting tengled on her or other swimmers, so the flexi worked well for us. Most of the time though, I'd rather have to deal with 30 ft of rope myself than worry about something going wrong with a flexi... that's just my preference though. Another thing that has really soured me on the use of flexis is how many times I've had people's flexi-controlled dogs come flying up to one of our dogs... this has happened while we've been training, while we've been out walking, even while we were sitting in a parking lot waiting for my mom to run in the store. I can yell to them to hold their dogs, but either they don't want to (and the flexi is a tool that allows their dogs to have access to mine while their owners are still 20 ft away), or by the time they do, the dog already has enough lead to get to us.

After 3 months of pretending she didn't exist (for new members, we took Haley in february after her owner almost killed her by not taking care of her diabetes, her owner "visited" with her from time to time for about 2 months, then stopped) Haley's (former) owner showed up today to see her??? I just don't get it... why the sudden change in heart? She kept carrying on about how she'd missed Hale so much... then WHY hasn't she been to see her at ALL since April??? She didn't say one word to me, and completely ignored Goo's wiggling from my chair for the first five minutes, while she made a huge fuss over Haley. Then when she finally did try to pet Goo, Goo seemed so miffed that she didn't even WANT her attention anymore... grunted and moved over to the other side of me. She ended up taking Hale up to the school and letting her loose (I've begged my mom to tell her to keep her ON LEASH, but she hasn't said a word, not that it would probably do much good), then when she got back, she wanted to go to Hale's training class with us. I wasn't sure whether I was going or not (my aunt was planning on making pizza, so it was a tough choice :rolleyes), so I decided to stay home and hang out with Goo after my mom told her she could go. (We had a great time, went with my aunt's BF in my dad's truck to trade back with their car, then goo got to slop up her windows on the way home (my aunt has never let Goo in her car, but it's a bit late for her to say no now :lol), then we wandered around the yard and I let her run around on the pier offleash (there's only one way on/off, and I stand in the way, so she can't get out).) I know it may seem like I'm overreacting, but this whole situation has gotten me so pi**ed off that I don't even want to think about it. On top of that, I'm a bit worried that she's going to try to convince my mom to let her have Hale back, and that my mom might actually agree :( Poor Goo must be picking up on my mood, she's been giving me funny looks all evening :sadCyber: :tard:

Geocities doesn't allow remote linking... I copy/pasted the link into the box up top, and it showed up :lol: Handsome boys, and a nice pic of them :)

Thanks everyone. I'm going to have to do some more thinking, and check with my dad again about building a bigger fence (we do have part of the yard fenced, but it's only a small part off to the side).

She's an APBT. Red noses aren't permitted in either AmStaffs or Staffies. Occasionally, a red nosed AmStaff will pop up, but it's very uncommon. You have to remember that the weights in the standards were written years ago, when dogs were usually kept more fit than today. There can be a huge weight difference between a couch potato dog and a well conditioned dog... as much as 20 lbs. Also, the weight "limits" on the standards are only "preferred" weight ranges... a dog who is otherwise correct, but slightly larger than standard (say, 75 lbs), but still proportional in weight/weight would likely be placed above a standard size dog with structural faults. Now, if two dogs who were both conformationally correct, but one was above standard in weight/height were shown against each other, the more standard in size should be considered more "correct" and be placed above the larger. If you look at a lot of the "huge pit bull" sites, you'll see that many of the dogs aren't so much tall, as they are extremely overweight. I remember seeing one that was 18" tall at the shoulder, and weighed almost 90 lbs... Goo is 21" tall at the shoulder and has always been under 60. Then there are the others who are much taller than standard... it's likely that those beasts are not purebred APBTs, but mastiff mixes. I guess what I'm getting at is that I think it's possible to have an uncommon 70-75lbs "fit" APBTs, and possible to have 80 lbs fat APBTs, but extremely unlikely to end up with a 90 lbs+ APBT that is, in fact, an APBT. There is NO way that these huge dogs are being produced on a consistent level without there being some other breed mixed in to throw out the huge size. Edit: On APBTs and AmSTaffs being the same breed... they have the same conformation standard, and there are dogs that are registered as both APBTs and AmStaffs. Some argue that they started as the same breed, but grew apart due to the different paths breeders took.... but how many UKC show APBT breeders still work their dogs today? Not too many, though there are some. I think that in effect, the UKC show-bred APBT and AKC AmStaff are nearly identical breeds, however, the APBTs that are still being worked today are not the same, though they are similar in that they all came from the same stock, and all have similar characteristics, though the show versions had been geared more towards "pretty" at this point. In terms of working ability, I'd say that the worknig bred APBT comes first, followed by the UKC dogs, where a good number still do some sort of work, then the AmStaffs, there are still a few working AmStaffs out there, but not as many as there should be.

Also wanted to add that I'm not going to go on being as "nice" about this junk as before... I dug out one of those little airhorns from our boat, and have filled up a squirt bottle with water/vinegar, also going to make a shake can to toss at them, so we're going to see which is most effective (as in: best at scaring them off, easiest to use with one hand or less, and least scary to Goo). If none of them work, then I guess I'll have to turn to even less "nice" options...

To give a little more info on the owners... the guy thinks he can do whatever he wants, and that his "rights" or wants come before everyone elses. They (he and his wife, who's actually a fairly nice person) started with one dog, a Sharpei, and their daughter gave them the lab about 2 yrs ago. This isn't the first time that we've had problems with their dogs... and it's the second time Goo has grabbed one of them and hurt them. The first time, the pei came running up to me, growling, and I'm pretty sure was planning on biting me, when Goo turned around (again, she was on-leash, and in our yard) and grabbed her. I had them broken up within 30 seconds, but the pei came back at us, just as the owner ran up with a large pipe, yelling "get back, I'll beat them apart" :o . I managed to keep them apart, but if he would've even [i]tried[/i] to hit Goo with anything, he would've had much bigger problems than he did with the two dogs fighting :x . He quickly collected his dog and took her back over to the house, not even a sorry, or a quick "is your dog ok?". After I had taken Goo up to the house, I came back down and asked him if his dog was ok, because she had seemed to be limping when she had went over, and repeated (I'd already told him this numerous times, but felt I should do it again) that Goo doesn't like other dogs, and he should keep his in his own yard, before she either hurt someone or got hurt herself. He said to me "well, maybe she's learned a lesson and will stay in the yard now". Less than a week later, the dog was back to wandering around. The only reason the dogs haven't gotten ran over or bitten someone (yet) is because their house is at the end of our "driveway" (which is actually owned by the county, but they do no upkeep, and it's just a dead end, gravel covered path that runs between 5 or 6 properties) and is among those farthest from the road. When he first moved in, he told us that we better keep our cat in the house (yes, I know, cats shouldn't be allowed outside anyway, but he's been an inside/outside cat for 12 yrs, and my parents aren't about to change things), because his dog (the pei) kills cats. Since then, the dog has killed at least two cats (possibly more strays), one of the neighbors', and a stray that we'd taken in (this was what caused Goo to go through my window). They've also killed numerous ducks and other native wildfowl, we used to have a flock of nearly 50 ducks that hung around our "area" (the 3 houses, including ours that border the water), all have left since he moved in with his dogs. I realize that this is what dogs do if allowed to, but the point is that his dogs should never have had the chance to come into our yard and wipe out entire nests of ducklings, or snatch ducks as my grandmother was trying to feed them. We (and our neighbors) have called AC numerous times about the dogs, we've basically been told that they won't do anything unless the dogs bite someone. He also shot an iguana that we had (he was a rescue, and got loose from an outdoor enclosure during spring, we spent weeks trying to find him, and once we had, trying to catch him) when it climbed one of [i]our[/i] trees that borders our yard. We'd told him that if he saw it, to come and get us, that we'd been trying to catch it... but nooo... he saw it in the tree, let his dog bark at it for a while, then went into the house, got a rifle, walked right up to it, and shot it. My aunt and her BF (both police officers) heard th gunshot, went out to see what happened, and saw him take the body down and chuck it overboard (my grandmother had also seen him looking up into the tree, then go into the house, come back out, and shoot something, then carry it down to the water). A few minutes later, my mom confronted him, and after getting nowhere with him (he basically told her he did it because "he could"), she went up to call the police. My cousin stood on my grandparents' porch and watched him get in his boat, drive out to the body and scoop it, up, then drive out of the cove, and dump it over again. When the police arrived, he told them he was afraid it was going to hurt one of his dogs (yet, he was unafraid enough to let his dogs bark at it for 10 minutes before he finally killed it, and to walk within feet of it to do so), and that he had only shot it with a pellet gun (which was a lie, my cousin went out and checked, and said there was no way that much damage was caused by ANY pellet gun). The police told us there was nothing they could do, and left. We sort of have our hands tied, because we have more dogs than is considered legal in our house most of the time (and he knows it), and I don't want him to be making noise about how Goo hurt his dogs (my younger cousin (14yrs old) was with us this time, and can confirm what happened, but no one saw what happened the first time, so I worry he might try and say Goo attacked his dog outright) and starting a bunch of trouble with the neighbors. I also don't really want him getting too pi**ed off at us, because I worry a bit that he may one day decide one of our dogs is a "danger" to him or his dogs, and haul off and shoot them. My parents aren't really eager to wade into a "neighbor war" either, so I doubt they'd agree with that. What gets to me about all this is that he KNOWS that Goo doesn't like other dogs, yet he doesn't even make an effort to keep his dogs under control when we go into the backyard. We have a few neighbors who like to let their dogs loose in the yard with them while they're out there, but most of them will grab the dogs if I walk past with Goo, or at least if I ask them to, and none of their dogs have ever ran over and picked a fight with her or tried to bite one of us. He HAS part of his yard fenced, and has a HUGE deck around his house, but he'll just open the gates and let them run. Goo's fine, the mark she had is nearly invisible today, but she was definitely watching down towards where the dogs are when I took her out to play on the deck earlier.

by the neighbor's lab. She was <cough> "taking care of things" at the end of her 6 ft lead in our yard when the dog (his name is "buddy", yeah right :roll: ) came flying out from behind a truck parked in "his" yard, screaming and barking, ran right up and bit her on the nose. As soon as he came out from behind the truck, I took up all of Goo's leash (a bit hard to do when she wasn't even done yet :o ), and pulled her back behind me, but not fast enough :-? . She was between my knees, trying to get him, and I was sliding all over in the mud trying to move her back out of his reach, but he kept coming back at us, barking and trying to bite her face. She ended up grabbing him at one point, and he yelped and backed off, then one of the neighbor's friends came running over with their other dog (who's human AND dog aggressive) in tow, and she almost ran up to us, too. He asked what had happened, and I told him, then he dragged the dogs up onto their owners' porch, where they came out, and talked amongst each other while occasionally peeking over at us. Goo's ok, she has a little cut on her nose, actually between her nose and lip, but nothing else. I haven't walked her into the backyard again yet, think I'm going to give her a few days to cool off. She's been marking everything she can reach in the yard when I take her out to pee, even lifted her leg on the mailbox :o . What got me is that an hour after his dog had ran into our yard and got into a fight, I walked out onto the deck, and there he was again, wandering around in the backyard. :x

Never had this happen before, but a call to the vet (if you haven't already done it) would probably be your best bet as to seeing what to do next. I did read something around christmas time about soaking cottonballs (has to be real cotton) in milk and feeding those to the dog if they ate any glass from x-mas bulbs... something about the cotton wrapping around the glass and trapping it in there so the edges would cut up the dog's insides. I have no idea whether it actually works or not, so it'd be a really good idea to check with the vet first :-?