Re: [PyrNet-L] Flock Guardian Pyr Problem

["Timothy M. Parks" <timparks@pacbell.net>]

> I believe that more than not, we are
>discussing  the bigger picture. Which has the colored paint of values,
>tones of moral ethics, a palette of life code's, shadow's of philosophy,
>lines of attitudes and responsibility towards all dogs.
>Judith

I find it not hard at all to agree with you, however, I was speaking
and dealing with the individual dog.  I think the number one \
concern should be with human involvement and the responsibilities
to that first.  In this original post, there was lot of information left
out so none of us have the full story.  However the issues that I got
out of it was that it was women aggressive, it chose to bite in a non-
threatening situation.  I gather from this that this dog is a threat to
a human who is not provoking and is a danger.  I think any 
dangerous dog should be put down.  I have no compassion for the
owner as he was the one who made the mistake of putting her in
that situation.  As far as the dog goes, it may be the result of some
bad breeding, in which case the dog needs to be put down, or it could
be of bad experience or faulty owners, in which case the dog still needs
to be put down as he is still a danger whether it is his fault or not.
What would you say to the next victim when it happens again?  I 
see a conflict when it was stated that this dog is aggressive towards
women yet this was the first time it bit.  It still is aggressive, and 
now has proved it.  This is not allowed at all in the Pyr standard
that I know of...  and again we don't know if this was a Pyr yet.
But I don't believe moving it to another state is the answer...  that
only moves the problem to another state.  Our first responsibility
is to the safety of other human beings, not to a specific problem dog
Again, I am not addressing the overall picture as you are, I am only
addressing my opinion on this specific case.

I do commend your compassion, though...

Tim Parks
Sacramento