Old news but you'll never get some of these old folks to sway from their old school set in stone ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
Printable View
Old news but you'll never get some of these old folks to sway from their old school set in stone ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
They don't see it because they subconsciously refuse to see it. Here's the money quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
"I want the OSPCA to allow a third party, a reputable rescue or reputable behaviour assessment specialist, to come in, positively assess the dogs and be able to allow rescues to take them out of the province," she said.
Note that the only outcome she considers is that the dogs will be rescued and taken out of the province, and that rescues are equated with "behavioural assessment specialists." The conclusion that the dogs must be rescued goes before the reasoning. It's an article of faith.
The underlying assumption is that all dogs can be rehabilitated. Any information that contradicts that belief is rejected as false without consideration. The people doing this don't even realize they're doing it; it's a subconscious process. It's not that they're necessarily stupid; it's that their minds will not allow their intelligence to assess the evidence.
We don't have to look too far to find an example of this.
MikePal seems to be incapable of grasping what the C-BARQ actually is, and how it is used. He continues to believe that it is a pass/fail test used to assess shelter inductees and earmark dogs for euthanasia, although it is not used this way. Indeed, in a past discussion, I linked to an article that explained how the C-BARQ was used to discredit the very shelter assessments he had confused it with.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
He seems incapable of accepting this. Why?
Absent from that article is any evidence to support the claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
I think it's you who seems not to grasp that the C-BARQ is being used to help "screening dogs for the presence and severity of behavioral problems".....and at a shelter that could mean euthanasia.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Why are you having a hard time grasping it when it's in it's own literature ?
Quote:
The C-BARQ is available to veterinarians, behavioral consultants, researchers, shelters, breeders, and working dog organizations with an interest in screening dogs for the presence and severity of behavioral problems. For a limited period, it is also open to pet-owners interested in comparing their dogs to others in the C-BARQ database.
http://vetapps.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/about.cfm
Here's an example of a shelter using the C-BARQ as a screening tool..
Although not stipulated....it's certain that if the outcome of a dog being relinquished to a shelter was proven to be aggressive, the 'prospect' would be dim..
edit add:Quote:
Now things get really cool. The research team at UPenn recently tested a shortened version (just 42 items) of C-BARQ (Duffy, Kruger, Serpell, 2014) to determine if it could serve as a more reliable tool for shelters. I asked Dr. Serpell to tell me the motivation for developing the shorter version and he noted, “Our goal in developing and testing this short version of the C-BARQ was to provide animal shelters and adoption organizations with a new tool for screening owner-surrendered dogs for behavior problems. Used in combination with direct behavioral observation and testing, we believe this instrument can help people make better informed decisions about the prospects for these dogs."
http://www.aspcapro.org/comment/124956
Note: I was actually being facetious when I made the comment about the C-BARQ being used…visualizing a bunch of guys who run a dog fighting ring being asked to answer questions about their dogs behaviour….:)
If these "experts" and apologists were prepared to put up personal guarantees covering all potential costs and expenses be it injury or legal expenditures do you think they would have the same convictions? You can sue a medical practitioner for mal practice and they have a professional body guaranteeing standards. These doggy experts have what? If they were prepared to risk their homes and retirements to back up their claims then they might have some credibility, but not enough for me.
Pitbulls were created ( by evil men ) to fight and kill efficiently, the breed isn't the result of natural selection in the wild it was specifically created to kill. These seized dogs are killing machines first and the fact they"may" live peacefully away from the fight ring can't be guaranteed 100%.
How in a province where these dogs are banned can someone possibly have 21. It would seem the legislation is not working or no one is enforcing the legislation.
Kinda like how the gun registry failed to eliminate illegal gun trafficking???
Strange how that works... lol
It's working. See here, no pitbulls:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...ite-Statistics
I see pitbulls all the time in the city they are not going anywhere but trust me dogs can change there is the odd one that just had to rough of a life to be rehomed but for the most part they can apart of a family I hate having the pit bull conversation ppl just don't wanna look for there selfs there's so Manny people on TV or YouTube or books of saving a dog from a fighting put and placing the dog in a home with kind people like I always say watch out for the small the dogs they never get trained
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk