Bug

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Or insert dogs, cannons, hand grenades, atom bombs. If I see someone walking my way with one of those things in their hand, it makes me nervous. Throw all the "yeah butts" out there you want. If you have a bully breed, why not get a non-bully breed and buy a gun? Strap it to you side. You ca get permits you know? That way if someone gets hurt by something you own, you have complete control. Ignorance is a horrible thing. So are out of control dogs that can latch onto a throat and never let go until they are dead.

I grew up with Boxers and my hunny grew up with Mastiffs. we are very familiar with bully breeds. i am not a fan of any dog being off leash. some don't need to be leashed but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be. but then i don't like other peoples kids to walk up to me either. they don't bite (usually) but it is still awkward. The bully breed dogs that i have known were absolutely docile unless they thought that someone in their family was in any kind of danger. I had no doubt as a kid that Lady would not let anyone in the house who would hurt me. yet my ritual with her every morning was to lay down on the floor in the morning so we could wrestle and she would lick my face. my mom babysat kids and Lady would just sit there when the kids would paw all over her and pull her ears. Mom mom ran with Lady every morning. she was well behaved on a leash and would sit by my mom's foot if any other dog was around. she was not very socialized and I think I will do that differently. I would like my dog to be more social. however, I will not ever leave my dog tied in front of a store, or at the bottom of a climb. that is not fair to the dog or the other people around. (I am really excited to get a dog ) So if you want a dog to play nice with the kids, get a lab. The question is what do you get with "pit" that you wouldn't get with less aggressive breed.....why risk it? Given the litigious nature of our society, are you really going to trust your family's financial future to a dog's ability to rightly judge "when someone in their family was in any kind of danger". The breed is not agressive they are protective. I don't care for Labs. Bully breeds are no more a risk than any other dog. they require training and like any other breed if they are too inbred they are more likely to no function well in society. as far as the protective nature of some breeds Mastiffs Boxers Pitbulls Rots and others, they were specificly bred to go to war (mastifs and rots) Bull mastiffs were bred to attack people who were tresspassing. It is in their breeding to know when someone is not suposed to be on the property. I am fully aware of how you and other uneducated people view bully breed dogs and frankly i am totaly uninterested. The only dogs i have ever seen attack inappropriately were not bully breed. one was indeed a black lab that nearly tore the face of it's owners child. so there. Sorry Muff. I like your posts n all but I think your bias is off base. In all the news stories I have read about dog attacking people and other dogs it was never a lab or a collie. It was always a pit bull or mastiff. I know that does not constitute a scientific study but it sure sways a jury.

My parents had a beautiful half wolf. We always kept it on a leash but it was a really mellow female. One night around 2:30AM I was walking her in the park. There was no one around so I let her off the leash. We ran about a mile when we came to a clearing. Just as we entered it, a woman entered from the other side. My dog trotted up to her just to check her out. She totally freaked out, fell on her back and put her legs up to keep my dog away from her. She was terrified. I grabbed Sheila as fast as I could but the woman was already in tears. Sheila was not aggressive nor did she growl or bear her teeth. But this woman had no way to know that Sheila was a gentle dog. I suggest you rember that with your pit bulls Muffy. They are bred to be aggressive. Most of them will respond to good training but some simply do not. Any stranger would be stupid to trust them.

This requires a collage Dagree.

As I told my girls this weekend, there is a supposedly true story of a Russion pilot who exited his jet at 28K and his chute did not open. He took an "average" fall. Amazingly, he walked away from it due to the perfect landing on the side of a steep snowfield. But I hear this happens all the time in Canada.

At least the Jackal is on a leash.

Ah. My Stupid....

I do not think my post is spray. If your safety is being threatened while you are climbing or even approaching, that is worth knowing about a specific area. In this case, I offered my perspective. Maybe if you saw someone you cared about bleeding as the result of a friendly dog you would not be so cavalier.

It is from where I sit.

I understand your position having had a few large dogs myself. The older they get, the more dominant they become. Strange situations throw them like this one where your dog probably felt like the alpha male protecting his tied up pack. Just one thing to consider, my 10 year old daughter is going to panic every time a big dog gets aggressive with her. She is getting better as she matures but kids should be allowed to go to the crags without being knocked down by mean or even friendly dogs. It is a big problem when it is your kid getting bruised by a bozo dog who just wanted to push by her. You would be surprised how often this happens. I now group them and prepare for battle when we are approaching a big dog. "He is friendly." is bullshit if your friendly dog knocks my daughter down and hurts her. In that case it is YOU who is the problem. As you defend your dog, ask yourself if you would defend your daughter with the same vigor.

I would have responded more harshly. Especially if the dog was nipping at one of my daughters. Dogs respond to lead dogs. It is natural.

It's funny that you mention Federal intervention in state's rights, only to immediately bring up public education--which is supposed to be a state's matter. You can't have it both ways. Environment? Other than refusing to jump on the Kyoto ship-to-nowhere, what has Bush done so differently than past administrations, Democrat or Republican? (Actually, I guess even Clinton wouldn't board that leaking bucket!) I know he's signed some pretty tough diesel sulfur reductions. He may be slowing the 30-year movement toward more environmental regulation, but he certainly hasn't "gutted" existing law. Saying that he has is just histrionics. Also - I do not support a ban on Gay Marriage, but I think the fact that state courts are legislating a national issue is regrettable. I never have, and never would support a "flag-burning" ban. Immigration? Exactly what have Republicans done? I think Dems and Republicans are both pandering to the immigrant vote. If anybody is angry about immigration, its union member Democrats. STP - I don't know of anyone who thinks RFK Jr is anything but a complete LOON. Posting his spew doesn't make you look moderate at all. Are you feeling OK? That actually made sense. Maybe I better open a window.......

There are major differences. We are at a crossroads im several ways. Population growth is hitting the steep part of the exponential curve. Oil supply/demand is forcing us to change our economic structure. The economy is now global as apposed to regional. At the same time, we are alienating ourselves from the bulk of the world AND going deep into debt to other countries. While you do not beleive in global warming, the scientific community does and believes it will bring about massive climate changes. Fisheries have and are dying out. Species extinction is the highest it has been since the asteroid that took out the dinosours. So only post WWII presidents and congresses count in this tally. They are the only ones who face a global or soon to be global economy. Out of those we have Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford as the only Republicans who truely beleived in Diplomacy. Reagan, Bush and Bush beleived in the big stick although Bush senior was the least hawkish and manipulative of the three. On the Democratic side we have Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton who use diplomacy as a major tool international relations. GW is a huge step toward clubbing people we do not agree with at a time when we are depending on their good will more and more and stomping on their toes. And at the same time, lying profusely in the name of short term profits for international corporations.

Obvious Al-quaida cell.

Kennedy will soon be dead. He held fast to no changes to the public welfare system and I think we will see some big changes when his infuence has diminished. He is the albatross for the Dems that GW is for the Republicans. Clinton's crimes were exposed through pure political motivation. Nobody inside the beltway really cares who does who. If they did, both sides of the alley would be decimated. Clinton's impeachment was payback for Reagan's cabinet being indicted to a man. Oh but I dare not scratch the Republican Icon. That rat bastard had the best propoganda machine this world has EVER seen. He had family farmer paying into the United Farmers Association and the money was going to pay lobbiests who sheparded in laws that gave the corporate farmers huge advantages. The family farmer all but died out under Reagan. An dthat is barely scratching the surface.

I didn't say they were pure. I just said they beleived in those things. GW/Dick beleive in the big club. And it is not just the Exec branch. Hillary too voted to "Kick Ass" in Iraq. Obama did not. He did however vote to clean up Afganistan and sid we should have gone into Pakistan after Obama. If we had done that before we illegally invaded Iraq, nobody would have batted an eye except for the Taliban in Pakistan. But since Obama said it after we invaded Iraq, he was labeled "irresponsible". Never mind that Bush lied again when he said we would pursue the perps of 911 without regard to borders or gov. That was just more propoganda.

Do you remember Scoop Jackson? Where did his Democrat Party go? I remember the parties that beleived in statesmanship and diplomacy. Neither contemporary party embodies those values. We should ALL be questioning EVERYTHING every politician says these days. Following blindly is tacit approval.

Is that non-fat?

At Play in Fields of the Lord. With a latte'. Good post. thanks.

Thanks Bob. Now go back to sleep. The Republican party you belonged to is long gone.

I just tire of the lunatic fringe articles he pulls out and touts as the "obvious" truth when they are so easily proven wrong. Bush/Cheney etc ARE liars. That is easy to document. Do a search on "liar" on this board alone and you will find many articles and videos of lies in action. In fact it IS treason to out a CIA operative. Thanks for all the help George. But hey, no blow jobs allowed for Democrats. Global warming is an accepted FACT amoung 99% of the worlds' scientists and 100% amoung those who make climatology their primary focus yet he pulls out an article written by a gym teacher or something and thinks it is the holy grail. My wet dream is for Obama to get elected and have George and his cronies indicted for treason just for starters. Then let's get into collusion with oil companies. TAX BREAKS for oil companies while they are making RECORD profits but hey, we aren't selling out to oil companies says George. They are LIARS, THEIVES, and TREASONIST bastards. They will stop at nothing to gather more money and power. They embody EVIL. They will go down in history as the worst nightmare at a crucial juncture in history. We all followed them down the path of the biggest lie just like in Nazi Germany. Time for a regime change pronto. As Eisenhower said, the biggest danger to the next president and beyond will be controlling the US military/industiral complex. They won. They own the "liberal media" adn now have their own open agenda showcased on Fox. Everything we hear is as suspect to me as what China feeds through it's gov controlled media. The corporations own DC. "By the people, for the people" now means those people who own stock. The rest are cannon fodder - men, women, and children - in the name of "Fiduciary responsibilty". Engage all you want. I am disgusted with Bush supporters at this point.

No pics? Boring.

Yes but that should be balanced with the concept that other peoples' failures do not justify giving up. I do not have any problem with leaving some of the obvious lines for posterity to develop. We cannot know what tools they will have at their disposal. Our perspective is limited by our own arrogance. We think we know that what we have now is it. Bolts may someday be obsolete and we will be trashed by ALL for being so short sighted as to not leave anything undrilled.

Republicans good. Democrats bad. FW summary. No need to engage.

God was there first. God gets all the FA's and all the FFA's. The rest of you are wankers. Baaaaaaack in Montana, we just went out and did lines and told people about them. Sometimes my name appeared in books, sometimes it didn't. The last book to come out for Blodgett has three lines I was in on the FFA's on and it doesn't mention anybody. If "my project" got stolen, I moved on to the next one. Of course, I might have been more inclined to steal theirs if the opportunity arrose. But the sniff test becomes more important as there are more rats in the cage. We all smell bad if you ask me. We are pursuing a sport that requires energy and pollution to manufacture the gear and there are very few redeeming social values. What there are could probably be more easily reached by coaching a soccer team. So it boils down to the fact that we are a spoiled bunch of selfish rich kids with habits we should be thankful to participate in. Yet we still stab each other in the back. Cheers!