Sorry, this kind of thing upsets me more than makes me happy the pup is better now, because I had to see it terrified of being touched first.
It reminds me of the aspca commercials with abused animals, trying to touch your heart and get your donation, but that's abusive of the very people they are soliciting, animal lovers.
My wife blocked her sister on Facebook because she constantly posted similar videos and pictures, bumming my wife out to near tears daily.
I can't blame the poster, he labeled it well, but I still wasn't prepared for the screaming terror.
I need to go watch some more playing baby pygmy hippo now.

Edit: I must not have read the description when I said I can't blame the poster, because now that I see the message was his normal "if you eat meat you abuse animals" accusatory tripe, I totally blame him.

Just post any of those old Sarah McLachlan ASPCA commercials, they get me every single time.

That makes you an unbelievable piece of shit IMO. A dog is an animal, not a 'tool'. A living, breathing, feeling animal that trusts you to take care of it. You don't put an animal that you accept control over and the obligation to care for in a position where they protect you at the expense of their own life, especially when you have many other options. The dog doesn't understand the danger you put them in, they expect they're holding the person, just like when they trained. They've been trained to think they aren't hurting the person, and that there's no chance they'll be hurt back. In fact, they're trained to think they get a treat/play time afterwards, not knifed.
I'm so disappointed in you. Don't get a dog.
The next time you see a person with a knife/machete, how about back off and wait for Swat...or try your tazer, or pepper spray, or bean bags, or your car, etc.... You have many other options besides just putting a dog in danger for no reason other than you're scared and uncaring.

EDIT: Your statement, and the fact that it's how most cops seem to think, is proof positive that these 'tools' are misused more often than not, and are treated unconscionably by those that are supposed to care for them. I think the ASPCA and other anti-animal abuse organizations should band together to work towards removing K-9 units from service as they are terrible for the dogs they use without a thought for the dogs welfare.
Dogs naturally act like furry, stupid/dumb/mentally challenged, sweet children, and should be treated as such.

Ahh ya big fucking sook, have a cup of concrete and harden the fuck up. You haven't even provided a single link to this mountain of supporting evidence and you're already exhausted? /eyeroll

1. "There are many organisations which have conflicting views, (my Tamaskan is 5 years old, male, un-neutered, and non violent) you happen to support the one that supports your extremely slim argument." <-- Having my "extremely slim" argument supported by the biggest animal protection agency in the US tends to lend it some credibility... Your dismissal of my argument is a dismissal of the ASPCA's similar argument. If you're too pig ignorant to understand that, not much I can do about that.. =)
2. I take it you don't have kids? Or are you one of those sad cunts who never let your kids actually do anything? Life is a risk. Going to the beach is a risk. Going to the park is a risk. Living is a risk.

3. Forced as in "made to give up the bone against her will"... Already explained it, you train them on the "leave it" command on something they are more willing to drop without aggression then migrate them progressively to things that are more likely to get a reaction. Reward good behaviour, punish bad. And before your asshole starts weeping tears of blood about punishment, it's a thwack on the bum with a thong (I guess what yanks call a flip flop). Don't overstress the dog and once you've asserted that you can get them off the bone, let them have it undisturbed.

4. So you're going to pick a position and be too fucking bone idle to bother supporting it with your own research?

5. Many bans are knee jerk reactions to situations rather than considered actions.

6. Yes, you did. Commentary on my parenting (which you know almost nothing about), assuming "force" meant something rather than clarifying. Your entire tone is bombastic and condescending and it's not just to me. Everyone else in the thread that has disagreed with you has been dished up a serve of your sneering lip.

7. Expert evidence that is so freely available you can't even cite one example. So yeah, you're done. Dismissed. ; )

You are truly tiring me out. This is my last post on the subject.
1; Where did i say I knew better than the ASPCA? read my previous post again s l o w l y.
2; Yes, you are a bad parent. Exposing a 3 year old to even the slightest possibility of serious harm, is beyond comprehension.
3; In your first post you said you forced the dog to give up the bone (try reading your own comments), what exactly do you mean by "force?
4; I told you to look for the information on fighting breeds. And what anecdotes did I quote? (again, read my comment)
5; I did not say "ban them because everyone else does" I said countries have banned them based on their own research. (read my comment again)
6; I make no "arrogant, ignorant, assumptions." (read my comment again and point them out).
7; Whatever personal attack you perceive is groundless. My comment was based solely on evidence provided by experts (look it up yourself), and your attitude regarding your child's safety. Your only concession is the mind numbingly stupid approach of; "I won't wrap my son in bubble wrap." The fact that you have such an opinion negates you from serious debate. I'm done.

So let's sum up your post quickly...

-The ASPCA is wrong because you know better.
-I'm a bad parent because I won't wrap my son in bubble wrap and hide him from a world that is inherently risky.
-By saying "force the dog to give up the bone" you assume that I'm mistreating it (using force) rather than teaching the dog to leave something (like a chew toy) then migrating that lesson to something it really doesn't want to give up like a meaty bone. Similarly, transfer of higher standing in the pack is not hard and does not require cruelty.
-You won't provide any supporting information apart from citing numerous anecdotal testimonies, which you also won't provide.
-Ban them because everyone else does (because humans never make knee jerk decisions based on headlines rather than science)

Your post is littered with ignorant and arrogant assumption and presumption. You're not interested in backing up your claims with any actual evidence and seem more interested in snide little ad hominem attacks. As I said, it's ironic that the person arguing against dangerous breeds is less well behaved then a member of the breed in question...

Your belief that the breed should be banned might have the slightest bit of credibility if you were able to muster up the civility to act with common courtesy.

Oh ya poor dear, dealing with all the tedium... Well how about the tedium of reading a report from the ASPCA recommending against breed specific bans...

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx

See, I've yet to see any hard scientific data proving that nature > nurture in terms of dogs, and it seems like the ASPCA (who you'd think would know a thing or two) agree with me... The biggest factor they estimate? Male dogs that aren't neutered (not breed specific), which is a nurture issue.

Oh yeah, my dog has been around my 3 year old son since he was an infant and has never even been vaguely aggressive. My son can also order the dog off a bone and she'll obey because (surprise surprise) I've trained her that he sits higher in the hierarchy. You know, the sort of thing a responsible dog owner does.

It speaks volumes, though, that a person so concerned with banning supposed vicious breeds can't spend their time contributing to the discussion without attacking other posters who disagree with them. And while animals might turn on people, they are animals without the benefit of higher sentience. What's your excuse?

I think Sarah Palin is going to think he's suggesting the molestation of the monkey. Better call the ASPCA and demand an apology.

>> ^Enzoblue:
This will be my weekend project. He said 4 Areca palms and 6 to 8 mother of tongues per person, but didn't say how many money plants. Anyone know?



The money plant is there to take toxins out of the air, which aren't produced by people. That shouldn't change much by adding people.

The other two remove CO2, which increases as you add people. I suppose the number of money plants you need would depend on local air quality, but I was unable to find any recommendations for number of plants.


It should also be noted that Mother-in-Law's Tongue and Money Plant are toxic to pets, so be careful if you have animals that like to chew on your house plants.

http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/poison-control/plants/golden_birds_nest.html
http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/poison-control/plants/devils_ivy.html

This current one sounds just as dramatic:

2. Dog trapped in a force-field
4. Dog risks own life to try to save another dog

The ASPCA needs to get on this dog force field thing before more puppies are taken.

This video is terrible, no doubt about it. But now I have to throw a fly in the ointment regarding a proposed "no animal abuse" policy. What about this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG6AE0mlxHw

It's been re-edited from the original scene in "Apocalypse Now", but anyone who's seen the movie knows about the water buffalo sacrifice. And it was a real animal sacrifice. Should a video like this be banned too, or will we let it slip through a loophole for "art" and/or "religion"?

And what if someone decided to post a video about animal abuse that takes place with circus animals, like maybe one produced by the Humane Society or the ASPCA? Or what if someone posted a video about how veal is produced, i.e., by penning the animal in a cage so tightly that it can't move, thus making its muscles weak and therefore tender? Or how chickens and turkeys are tightly packed into production facilities?

All I'm saying is that if we craft a new policy regarding animal abuse videos, it needs to be done VERY carefully.

Nice find!

Is that an ASPCA bracelet he's wearing? Good for him!