# Canine Filing?



## Judy (Dec 12, 2005)

What is your opinion on canine filing as an alternative to breed banning?

(Relates to this discussion).


----------



## Derek79 (Jul 15, 2006)

I think its absurb personally.

My puppy likes to put her paws on ya, and scratch to get your attention, still breaking her of that.

So what if she does it to some kid, will I have to de-claw her?

Where does it stop?


----------



## WONDERLANDAMSTAFFS (Feb 9, 2007)

*Absurd?*

Derek;

A puppy jumping on someone and scratching them is a little different from a dog outright attacking someone.( by the way, people do declaw cats all the time to prevent them from scratching). The real thing in question here is not wether or not your dog will someday bite someone, but how much damage will it cause if it does? Pitbulls may not have the highest bite rate in the country, but they do have the highest FATALITY rate. And that's just people! I know several people who have a large number of Amstaffs/Pitbulls and ALL have had a dog seriously injured or killed in a kennel fight. It just isn't preventable sometimes. Or is it??

These are just not your average dogs. They were bred to catch, hold, shake, and tear without stopping unless physically removed. And to never back down from a challenge. This mentality and drive is a human creation, from way back in the day of bloodsports. And it's not something a whole lot of people seem to want to face. But with the ownership of these dogs comes the responsibility of controlling the potential damage they can do. We all like to think our dogs are harmless house pets, but it just isn't true. They were designed for something else entirely. I'm not saying they will all be raging monsters, but the fact is some of them will have a higher residual drive than others, and having no other outlet, transfer that drive innapropriately. The scary thing is, you never know which one it will be.

A breeder friend of mine recently had a litter of pups. When the remaining pups were 4 months old, she let them out to potty one day. One of them, a little bitch, was so busy nosing around a bush, that she wouldn't listen to her mom calling her back in the house. My friend went over to her and gave her a light slap on the rump to get her attention and all heck broke loose. That little 20lb puppy outright attacked her without hesitation. She didn't even stop when my friend picked up the poop scoop to defend herself. Needless to say, she was euthanized the very next day. But imagine what would have happened if that pup had been sold and this had happened later when she was grown? And my friend has never, in 30 years of breeding, had a people aggressive dog in her bloodline or her Kennel.

I liken this to people who keep domesticated large cats (Lions, Tigers, Mountain Lions, etc. ) A whole lot of them have their cat's teeth filed and they are declawed as well. It's a good safety precaution. Look what happened to ( was it Roy or Sigfried?). They thought it was unnecessary too!
You just never know.

Also, I am still suggesting this as an ALTERNATIVE to breed banning only. Are you telling me that if your local officials told you that you had to file your dogs teeth or it would die, that you would choose death?? Sure, maybe you could move, but I garauntee you that the banning will continue sweeping the nation until there's nowhere left to go! Just like big cats, can't have them anywhere without special permits and government approved facilities.

Are we so hung up on wether our dog has a " pretty smile " or not that we'd sacrifice their lives for it. Especially when the change is strictly cosmetic and in no way a detriment to the dog's health and well being?? I should certainly hope not.

Something to ponder I hope.

Sharon


----------



## GSDBulldog (Dec 22, 2006)

Cosmetic surgery is no replacement for responsibility. 

-GSD


----------



## Judy (Dec 12, 2005)

GSDBulldog said:


> Cosmetic surgery is no replacement for responsibility.
> 
> -GSD


Agreed, but not everyone is responsible - also there are accidents, and sometimes dogs do get out.


----------



## tazmaniak24_6 (Jan 30, 2007)

"They were bred to catch, hold, shake, and tear without stopping unless physically removed. And to never back down from a challenge. This mentality and drive is a human creation, from way back in the day of bloodsports"

Not so true... this mentality and drive came from before the bloodsports when they baited boar and cattle.... and maybe made stronger through "bloodsports"..... (correct me if i'm wrong) 

u make a good point and a stronger arguement, a lot of which i agree with (especially as an alternative only).... and you are right, responsibility doesn't keep ACCIDENTS from happening (otherwise they wouldnt be called accidents oke: )


----------



## GSDBulldog (Dec 22, 2006)

Judy said:


> Agreed, but not everyone is responsible - also there are accidents, and sometimes dogs do get out.


If it were a case of "do this or your dog dies", then perhaps. I have a dog whose missing most of his teeth anyway, he doesn't know the difference. But as a reccomendation to the average pet owner? No, I wouldn't put my dog through it. Like I said, it's no replacement for responsible handling. An accidental fight once in a while is one thing, we all have slip-ups. But if you constantly end up with dead or injured animals... Then it is time to re-evaluate your regimine.


----------



## WONDERLANDAMSTAFFS (Feb 9, 2007)

*Question*

Here's a question that I hadn't thought of. How many people, of the ones opposed to filing, have had their dogs ears cropped? We do this to our breed all the time without ever thinking about the discomfort the puppy endures during the healing and taping process. Is this not a strictly cosmetic prodedure??

Yet when one talks about doing something painless to a dog to insure it's well-being if need be, it's not ok?? I'm confused.

My ultimate goal is to have this option presented to legislators in areas where the bully breeds are already banned, and in areas where they are trying to ban them. Give them a choice that might spare the lives of thousands of members of our beloved breed.

There is hope!!

Sharon


----------



## tazmaniak24_6 (Jan 30, 2007)

WONDERLANDAMSTAFFS said:


> Here's a question that I hadn't thought of. How many people, of the ones opposed to filing, have had their dogs ears cropped? We do this to our breed all the time without ever thinking about the discomfort the puppy endures during the healing and taping process. Is this not a strictly cosmetic prodedure??


We personally have NEVER and would never crop our dogz ears... i persoally dont like pain so i wouldn't put anyone of my FAMILY MEMBERS through that (the "treat others as u would like to be treated" thing)... not to say that i have anything against anyone else doing it, its just not my thing..  (and just so u know, i voted for it  :thumbsup: )


----------



## GSDBulldog (Dec 22, 2006)

WONDERLANDAMSTAFFS said:


> Here's a question that I hadn't thought of. How many people, of the ones opposed to filing, have had their dogs ears cropped? We do this to our breed all the time without ever thinking about the discomfort the puppy endures during the healing and taping process. Is this not a strictly cosmetic prodedure??
> 
> Yet when one talks about doing something painless to a dog to insure it's well-being if need be, it's not ok?? I'm confused.
> 
> ...


I am just as opposed to cropping and to a lesser degree, docking. I would not risk putting a dog under soley for a cosmetic reason. Besides, I love natural ears 

Sharon, how much experience do you have with dogs who have had their canines removed? Would it in any way affect a dogs preformance in any sport that requires a good grip, such as Schutzhund or hog hunting?


----------



## cherol (Jan 7, 2007)

Think about this.....what would be accomplished by canine filing?

We ALL know the "drive" these dogs have....so if a pit with "filed canines" atacked someone would that stop the outcome? No they would still keep going until they accomplished their mission! So in my opinion filing their canines would give a false sense of security for those so "afraid" of these dogs, and give the media a new parade to show how pitbulls are so dangerous. 
Have you ever seen the way they stake small bears to the ground (after (not filing) but pulling their teeth and declawing them) then sick pitbulls on them? (probably not) I watched a movie a long time ago called "faces of death" well in it they showed this and not only did the bear kill one dog but it went through 6 before i was hurt to much to fight (that's with no teeth or claws) . And make no mistake this was no huge grizzly bear it was a Himylayan Honey bear ( or something like that) it was smaller than american blackbears. 
You used lions and such animals as an example....show me where a big cat attacked someone with filed teeth and no claws but it was not detrimental to their health....... Just because people do it, does NOT mean it works......


----------



## WONDERLANDAMSTAFFS (Feb 9, 2007)

Sharon, how much experience do you have with dogs who have had their canines removed? Would it in any way affect a dogs preformance in any sport that requires a good grip, such as Schutzhund or hog hunting?[/QUOTE]

I would not reccomend filing for a Shutzhund dog, The teeth are important for work in this field. Police dogs have broken teeth repaired or risk losing their career. As far as hog hunting goes, I happen to love pigs as much as I love dogs, so I can't imagine letting one get torn up by a dog on purpose. I would never tell anyone what they can or cannot do though. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Like I said earlier, It is my friend who has adopted dog's teeth done as a precaution against being used as a fighting dog and accidental injuries to people or other animals. I have twice, over the years, seen other people's very dog aggressive dogs (with broken canines from tearing through fences), that managed to escape a kennel and start a fight ( they can be incredibly determined sometimes ). They ended up much the worse for wear afterwards, with the other dog having only suffered some minor scrapes and bruises. On the other hand, a split second scuffle, quickly broken up, can leave scars that can end a young show dog's career. This I have had happen to me personally. It is heartbreaking. And you don't see it coming.

As for answering to the next post. If declawing and filing big cats had no positive effects, they wouldn't be doing it at all. Also, we are not talking about pitting animals against people or each other here.

Sure, if you leave a child in a room alone with a filed dog and that dog attacks. And no-one tries to stop it. The child might get killed. Now we're talking about cases of extremes.

If a person is walking down a street and gets run up on by a dog with filed canines. He's much more likely to end up with a nasty bruise than 140 stitches.

People are always talking about how Cocker Spaniels and Toy dogs have the highest bite rate. Ask yourself why they are not banned. The answer is pretty clear. They don't seriously maul most people. It's fact that we cannot deny.

Like I've said before, If it weren't for the probability of having it held against my dogs in the show ring, I would have done my own dogs by now. But that is just me, and we are all individuals with our own views and opinions. That's what makes this world such an interesting place!!


----------



## cherol (Jan 7, 2007)

"If a person is walking down a street and gets run up on by a dog with filed canines. He's much more likely to end up with a nasty bruise than 140 stitches." 
That is a matter of opinion, not fact. 

"Sure, if you leave a child in a room alone with a filed dog and that dog attacks. And no-one tries to stop it. The child might get killed. Now we're talking about cases of extremes"

The majority of dog attacks that result in fatality are either small children or elderly people.

"If declawing and filing big cats had no positive effects, they wouldn't be doing it at all."

Have there been studies to prove results of filing and declawing...examples that can be cited??????

"People are always talking about how Cocker Spaniels and Toy dogs have the highest bite rate. Ask yourself why they are not banned. The answer is pretty clear. They don't seriously maul most people. It's fact that we cannot deny."

Maybe so, but they don't have the bad press poisioning the everyday publc against them either. Even if they did somehow manage to seriously maul someone, unfortunately it would never make the news.....no one cares about "non aggressive" breeds attacking.

And yes we are all individuals with different opinions, and it does make the world a very interesting place.:thumbsup:


----------



## tazmaniak24_6 (Jan 30, 2007)

WONDERLANDAMSTAFFS said:


> As for answering to the next post. If declawing and filing big cats had no positive effects, they wouldn't be doing it at all. Also, we are not talking about pitting animals against people or each other here.


i think cherol may have been trying to state that if a small bear (very small bear) with NO teeth and NO claws can still kill six pitbulls, then a pitbull with a mouthful of teeth (even if the canines are filed) could still be just as "potentially dangerous" to a human or other animal as they were when they had thier canines  thats all


----------



## MY MIKADO (Apr 7, 2006)

No I would not even consider it. I think that if the general public knew that we APBT owner filed our dogs teeth then they would say see we knew along those are dangerous dogs. But where does it end? We register them we linces them they have to wear muzzles some places. Now we do this to our dogs. NO WAY!!! 


And no I do not crop my dogs ears either. But that is a personal choice having big brother telling me that I have file my dogs teeth to keep him. Heck no.


----------



## WONDERLANDAMSTAFFS (Feb 9, 2007)

The only examples I can give, I have given already. I have twice seen first hand the difference not having canines makes as far as injury goes. Albeit accidental of course, but there was no mistaking which dog had far graver injuries. Punctures and tears vs scrapes and swelling, it was undeniable. It was nothing short of a miracle that the dogs with no canines survived at all.

Scientifically and logically speaking, a short (filed level with the incisor) flat surfaced tooth is not likely to puncture a piece of flesh and then tear it open with one stroke like a long sharp canine can.

I once had a beautifull young bitch with a very promising future. One day, in the house, she did something to upset one of my older dogs. I'm still, to this day, not sure what it was. I was standing right there. But the older dog turned and snapped at her. And with one shot she had her face laid open. She underwent emergency surgery, but in the end was left with a scar that ended her chances of becoming a special. ( a special is a dog that wins it's championship and then continues to show in the breed classes towards a national ranking.) She still lives here now, and did eventually win her championship ( though many judges did hold it against her and it took twice as long to win it) but I always think about what might have been if that didn't happen.

I guess this just makes me see things in a different light. As a person who is an exhibitor/breeder and who has close friends that are as well, I have seen many things that the average pet owner with only one or two four legged family members has not. It gives you a different perspective when you see first hand the damage that dogs can do. And I don't just mean bully breeds. Even people I know with Dachsunds and Lakeland Terriers have had, at some point, had a fatality in their kennel. We're not talking all the time of course, but at least once in the last 10 years.

But I still believe that a legislator might be able to be persuaded not to kill the bully breeds if they were given an alternative. Without an alternative, they only see outright banning as a solution to the publics mass hysteria. Many people at my job think my dogs are monsters because of the hype on TV. I have tried to convince them otherwise but have failed. This is something that doesn't appear to be a passing phase.

I myself worry about the banning coming here. But if they try it, I am going to stand up and offer to file my dogs, as long as they conference with AKC/UKC to allow it. It's better than losing them altogether.

Keep up the great discussions guys! It's nice to have something to think about. So many points of view and of interest. I really like talking to you!!:cheers: 

Sharon


----------



## ericschevy (Nov 10, 2006)

This is what I like to call, "solving a problem by creating another." IMO
Like Mikado said, 
" I think that if the general public knew that we APBT owners filed our dogs teeth then they would say see we knew all along those are dangerous dogs. But where does it end? We register them we licence them they have to wear muzzles in some places. Now we do this to our dogs. NO WAY!!! "


----------



## Nation (Sep 27, 2006)

If I had to choose between losing my dog or filing his teeth not a hard decision.


----------



## Derek79 (Jul 15, 2006)

IMO it is not just about the dog. It is about "going along to get along". I will not do this. This flies in the face of everything that is SUPPOSED to be American.

This is our rights we are talking about. I know I am a pretty responsible owner. I have never had an aggressive dog, yet have owned almost all of the "dangerous" breeds.

If they told me I had to do this, or they would take my dog away. I would be on my porch with my gun and dog. I will go down fighting, and yes I do believe that it is worth dying over.

I will not succumb to the stupid mass of people that refuse to educate themselves, and then believe they can come and tell me what I should do. They do not have that right, and if they wish to take it, over my dead body.

Your dog is willing to die for you, think about that. And just because they are an animal, does not mean their life is any less valuable.


----------



## MY MIKADO (Apr 7, 2006)

Great posting Derek. I too would die for my dogs. How far do we have to go to please the general public. What do we have to do to prove that our dogs are no more dangerous than the pom or poodle that lives down the street. These are our dogs and we need to protect them. The land of free i don't think so if government makes us do things to our animals that we don't want to.


----------

