Which comes first - the dog or the owner?

Watching American Justice on A&E tonight really got my blood boiling, and as a result, it compelled me to update my blog for the first time in a long while.

The case they were talking about just made me want to jump through the screen and strangle someone. The case concerned a couple in San Fransisco who owned two large dogs that viciously attacked a grown woman and killed her.The fact that the female dog owner charged in the case was convicted of 2nd degree murder, then excused, then convicted AGAIN, not to mention the fact that she (of course!) showed remorse ONLY when put in the hot seat as a witness, was just the tip of the anger iceberg for me.

Of course, the overall question here was whether or not pet owners should be held responsible for the actions (brutal, in particular) of their pets. I mean, hello, who should be held responsible if not the owner? The animal itself, which has no idea between right and wrong and acts only on instincts, which they cannot help and which thousands of years of evolution have instilled in them? I don't think so. It doesn't matter how long your dog, particularly a larger more aggressive breed, has been domesticated, spending its days sleeping and being stroked by you, it is still an ANIMAL. Animals are inherently wild.Most of them will never attack a person in their lifetime, and certainly not brutally enough to kill, but that doesn't mean the possibility is eliminated as soon as you place a jewelled collar around its neck and call it "Princess". The possibility of an animal attacking is ALWAYS there and it's only our own ignorance and the fact that we take the character and nature of animals so for granted that make us think otherwise.

Animals in general are more afraid of us then we are of them (humans, after all, are "the most dangerous game"), but if they feel threatened they will attack - DUH! They cannot help this and if it happens it has nothing to do with the animal being murderous, mean, or bloodthirsty with a hate-on for children. Animals cannot be held responsible for the urges that are inherent in them.They don't understand "decorum" or "politeness" or even, sometimes, the difference of good-natured teasing and life-threatening foe. Don't we all have the urge (and the right in most situations) to defend ourselves when we feel threatened? Why is it ok for us to defend ourselves but not them? The difference with humans is we have the CHOICE of whether or not to lash out and to let the situation or person get the better of us, or to let it go and be mature and composed. Dogs (and animals in general) don't have a choice, and don't grasp the concept anyway.

If an animal is violent it is because it has learned from a stupid, careless, redneck owner who is emotionally unstable and has nothing better to do then to scream and hit and train dogs to fight. Animals are like children - if they grow up in a home that is unstable they will develop unstable characteristics. Without love and affection (and a healthy amount of discipline) from owners, their development will be stunted and they will lash out.It's also no accident that most dog attacks are on children (unfortunately). Let's face it: most children, not realizing the consequences, tend to provoke pets. I know I used to bug my pets when I was a kid and drove them crazy! Not saying that if a dog bites a kid in the face that the kid deserved it, but like I said before if a dog senses a threat, it will attack and children and their parents take that fact for granted. I know that my blood would get up pretty darn quick with repeated tail pulling and nose poking (I don't have a tail of course, but you get my point).

Isn't this a no-brainer?! I don't understand why more people don't get it; it's not rocket science! I agree that there are certain breeds more predisposed to violence than others, but I also believe certain breeds of dogs, just like humans, shouldn't be typecast. Sure, lots of rottweilers, for example, can be aggressive, but some can be docile as well.Chances are, if even a more aggressive breed is raised in a loving, stable home environment that provides everything it needs physically and emotionally, it won't ever be aggressive aside from a few nips to a hand.

If all us pet owners could just raise our animals the way we'd raise our children (to be mature, polite, and considerate) then there wouldn't be a problem.Anyone who raises a dog to be a fighting machine should be chained up in a backyard pen to be beat up for a few years and see how they like it (and how they turn out). Of course, I'm not simpleton: I realize it's a free country and that anyone can own a pet that wishes to. I also understand that this is a touchy subject with many sides to the story and that when it comes to our pets we can get very emotional and defensive. Trust me! I love my cat like I would my own child.

I just feel horrible for the animals that are put down or taken away because of the actions of their owners.I'm not excusing the behaviour, or saying that animal attacks, especially those that result in long term damage or death, should be excused. But hold responsible and try the owners, not the dogs. Animals are being shot and euthanised just for being dogs - for doing what is in their nature to do; what has been bred into them over centuries. Dogs shouldn't be punished for the poor example set by the owner they didn't choose.

You wanna talk about murder...