Zhou Xuanyao

Of course it is natural ! It is the subject of this story. Are these artificially intelligent cyborg Malamutes ? The only reason wolves don't kill Shitzu's in the wild is because they don't exist in the wild. Small mammals are hunted all the time by wolves. Suppose you took a small breed dog and put it near a pack of dingoes or wild dogs, what do you think would happen ? eta - I think we know the answer to that so consider it rhetorical. The point is, we have created large breeds, small breeds, and everything in between, and we keep them in our society together, there would be no such coming together and no such circumstances in the wild. Problem is, we keep them as pets, and we love our pets and don't wish harm to fall upon them, so most people do their best to contain their dogs. This is a man made problem and we must deal with it as best we can and understand the issues for what they are, but claiming that it is not natural for a large dog to kill a small dog is absurd.

Its just a prey item, its fun to chase and kill, there is no more to it. This is an extremely common behavior, it makes little difference whether it is a small dog or a rabbit. It's a risk we take when we walk our dogs. There is a pervasive mentality in Australia that risk should and can be eliminated. From ending dog attacks to eliminating the road toll, neither of which is going to happen while we own dogs and drive cars. We are a dog owning society, and with that privilege comes risks. The idea is to manage our pets as best we can and always be alert. Killing these two might make the owner of the dog that was attacked feel better, but she best not believe she faces any less risk when out walking her next small dog or swf, because on her block alone there might be another half dozen dogs that would do the same thing if they were to escape their yard.

Great photos, nice find Steve.

Good posts Cosmolo.

Because I think photographing or filming people against their their will in this way makes push and shove situations inevitable. These wardens have gone beyond the role of guarding penguins, and with that comes risk. It does not matter if you think they "should" push, fact is, people do. You or I being pushed is nothing, an old lady that is pushed could be seriously hurt, thats why age is a factor.

It sounds like a predictable outcome given the situation, the only thing unusual about it is that she was 72. Maybe this is not a job for a 72 year old. I know if I was taking photos of someone in this way without their consent, and then presumably continued after being signaled to stop, i'd expect that trouble is likely.

Edited to remove account. Why ? Because I did not consider the title properly. I don't think my dog acted in an effort to protect me, I think he acted out of his own interests and in the protection of his territory.

It's like I was explaining to my kid brother a while ago. Most dogs were originally bred with a primary purpose in mind, a purpose other than pets. Now, all dogs for the pet market are bred as pets. Every now and again individual dogs, by chance, will be useful for the task they were originally bred for, but by and large dogs have to be rigorously tested for and selectively bred over a number of generations to start getting working abilities back, just having a certain breed that historically did a particular task means little. This was my reply when he asked me why his Golden Retriever is useless. He said, Kooper (dogs name) would not retrieve game for the hunter, rather, he would locate it, eat it, then go to sleep

Human medical is subsidized, thats the difference. I don't see doctors very often, but if I recall, after rebate I think a GP consult costs around $15. People don't mind paying it because its nothing. Now if GP's were not subsidized, things would be different, people would be demanding lower prices, people would be complaining about paying 2 x consult fees for two people, and many GP's would earn market share by lowering their charges for multiple patients in a single consultation. This is the competition we see amongst vets. Now some people might say but thats not fair, well, yes it is fair. Any service is only worth what people are willing to pay, it doesn't matter how much someone thinks they should earn. I could turn around and say hey, you know what, I dig holes all day like an arse hole, this is hard work. So I am going to double my price from now on because that is what I think I deserve. I can do that if I wish, but customers can refuse to hire me and go elsewhere if they wish just as easily.

Sure some will, but most guys will charge x amount for the first hour, and then for arguments sake 75% of the initial minimum charge for subsequent hours. So for example, he might charge $120 minimum charge, and then $90 per hour after the first hour.

I don't think its fair at all and if anyone tried to charge me 2 x consultation fee they would know my opinion. They charge whatever it is, seems a usual price is $70 + as something of a minimum charge, like a plumber, courier, fitter and turner, ect. Then of course the rate for additional hours or cargo decreases, well i'd expect the same from a vet, which is just how mine is. I can't remember what it was exactly but I was happy, and their standard rate is $57.

Sure he's fine they are big dogs, wheeling around a little kid would be kindergarten for a healthy Rottweiler. Remember he's not baring all the weight of the child and cart, most of the effort required is in his legs not his back or shoulders. All he is doing is pulling the cart not lifting it. Think about how easy it is to pull or push around a loaded shopping trolley. Now imagine trying to lift it ! In other words, even if there was multiple kids in the cart, it would be no problem as long as the tires are inflated properly and the ground is firm.

Education is the most important part. I do not necessarily define education as learning objective scholarly facts (although this is indirectly a critical part), but also as indoctrinating people with a certain opinion. Education enables people to mix in broader circles in the wider community, a world of people and opinions which they would not have meaningful access to without education. They are subsequently influenced by all these people, and they take these lessons back to their families, communities and circles of friends where they contribute their influence. One group tries to coerce another into behaving the way they would prefer by building a consensus. This consensus is used to chip away at the other side in an effort to reduce or eliminate it, thats the common contemporary model for social reform.

Sure I am, we both are The behavior is not normal only insofar as it is deviates from the behavior and beliefs of the majority of people, but that doesn't show anyone is evil. If you consider that their behavior conforms with the normal standard within their certain group or subculture, then by that measure it is normal. Here is something to reflect on if you choose to. The children I mentioned earlier, are they all evil for being indifferent to dog fighting ? Would children from an area where dog fighting was rare or non existent, an area with a strong culture of pet ownership and affection, react the same way to questions about dog fighting ? I think the answer is obviously no. The least plausible explanation is that all the children in the neighborhood where dog fighting is prominent just so happen to be evil. The most reasonable explanation is that the children are a product of their conditioning. It follows then, that when they grow, if they participate in this activity, they do so (for the most part) because they have a conditional predisposition to it. If the same children were taken from place A and raised in place B, their outlook on life would be completely different. This hypothesis also, incidentally, provides the most opportunity for optimism. Under my world view, dog fighting can potentially be all but eliminated over a generation or two with social reform initiatives. This includes, but is far from limited to, punitive measures. Under the view that these people are inherently evil, the pursuit to liberate these dogs from fighting is in vain, and the general improvements in attitude toward animal welfare globally in the past 150 + years would defy any reasonable explanation.

People do not intrinsically think it wrong, far from it. Right and wrong is cultural, learned and conditioned, not necessarily directly. The only reason we regard dogs as pets and are affectionate toward them is because our environment facilitated it. It is not a matter of justifying, it's just putting the emotive accusations aside and looking at the problem realistically. The best way to change something is to understand the causes.

They are not evil, nor are they sociopaths. Generally speaking that is. I'm sure sociopaths are among them. It is an indifferent attitude to an animals welfare, we see it all over the world in the present day and of course right through history in just about every culture, including our own. The short portion on Italy, for example, was interesting. They have not changed in two thousand years. It used to be lions, tigers, elephants, peasants, Christians, ect, now its dogs. The crowd was much different to the American scene, you could see they looked like regular, dare I say sophisticated people. It is just cultural conditioning and nothing else. I once saw some documentary where a class of young primary school children in Chicago were asked about dog fighting. They were all familiar with it, and all seemed indifferent. These kids have been raised in an environment in which dog fighting is not considered wrong, how are they to know ? As far as they are concerned, some babbling women on the tv says it is wrong, but their common experience and conditioning says it is right. Then they grow up, they fight dogs as well, their kids are raised desensitized to it, and so forth. The solution lies in gradual social reform and an understanding of the true nature of the issue.

No they are regular families and individuals who are talking about their dogs, playing with them, ect. These sections are in parts 5 and 6.

I don't know who the greater enemy of the Pitbull is, the fighters or the government. Hypocrites have got some nerve lecturing every one else while they are indiscriminately killing and taking innocent dogs from their families to put to death every day. I don't think there will be progress here until the government gets on the side of the dogs. I'd like to see people directing strong criticism toward them, far from any support. The various parts toward the end showing the dogs with their families was beautiful. These dogs have got a lot of supporters, I think in time BSL will fizzle out. I don't think fighting is going to end any time soon, but like I said, if the authorities get on the right side, then maybe they will be able to reduce it.

I guess. I made a mistake. In the article it says that Doug is a pointer x ug, I read ug as pug, as opposed to a pointer x by the name of ug. Pointer x Pug seems a reasonable guess nonetheless, but there's no evidence. Even if the paper had reported he was a pointer x pug, the guess of the pound that identified him where they got the dog is probably as good as ours. So we haven't seen evidence he has GSP in him either, although that also seems a reasonable guess.

Neither have I. The pugs extreme features, the same ones that are the cause of the problems in the pedigree pug, seem obviously the cause of Doug's unique charm. I'd hasten a guess and say if the pointer were crossed with a more physiologically sound breed it's unlikely you would see the same result. Having said that, i'm not neglecting the fact that there is probably a relatively high chance of deformations when crossing other combinations of widely dissimilar breeds as well, but in the case of the pug it has issues whether it is crossed or not.

Lets be reasonable. Cross breeds do not all look like Doug. Infact, Doug is the only dog that looks like Doug I have ever seen, and thank goodness for that The main reason he looks like that is because of the pug, which as cute as they are have their own share of problems whether they are crossed or not. Who is to blame for the pugs that cannot breath properly, overheat, bloat, and cannot give birth unassisted ?

Poor little mate. Glad his got a home

Thats right.

People calling for punishment are showing their misunderstanding of the situation. These people are not "sick", or "bad". They do this because they are conditioned to do it. It is China not Australia. These Chinese folks protesting on the internet are probably largely comprised of a fringe group of idealistic young people and uni students, but their voices will grow over time. What we might regard as extreme cruelty is routine in China and not regarded as cruel at all, consider what they do to dogs and cats as an example. This is not a situation where you fix a problem with "punishment", its a matter for broad social reform that take generations.

Some dogs are dangerous, and I do like the ideology, but I fear it's execution will be flawed and it will not be implemented in a way which is just. Menacing is defined by this law as causing fear to a person or animal. Different people have different thesholds to fear, and different prejudices and perceptions of dogs and dog behavior. Under this law, if you walk a timid or unsocialized dog and it becomes afraid of another dog being walked in the vicinity, then that other dog meets the definition of "menacing". If someone walks past a house and starts at the sound of a barking dog, then that dog could be declared menacing. If someone simply does not like the look of a dog and is afraid or claims to be afraid, that dog could be declared menacing. I think this law is too open ended. In the end it comes down to the council officer's opinion, and I do not want to place my confidence in the judgement of council officers.