fchan

http://fchan.hentaiplanet.net/flash/res/8546.html#10857 <- 
The flash that is attactched to that one shows a good point, as to a great many things about how things happen to be.

It's a sad tragity, I have no real love for a pit bull truthfully, but I do have love and caring for all animals, and I do what I can..   There are some that go ya they tend to be more agressive, which could be true, but only means you should know what your doing before you get one, and actually love the animal, not want it for some misguided purpose, Oh like some pointless reason to have a attack dog, that's truely mean..

...  Sad truth, I wish that they would do background checks, you go through hell and a half in the states to adopt a human baby, why? To make sure it's a good home, and you'd take care of him/hir/her, and it wouldn't be a bad enviroment... etc..  But anyone with the cash or credit on hand, can get a animal, and truthfully, make a good animal bad.. Yes some have a harder time being good, but that's where love and good training comes in.  I do wish there was a social services for animals, so when you wanted to get one, you had to prove you could care for the animal, and be subjected to inquires about how are, and what you think, etc....  Yes, maybe harsh, but guess what, it's worse for the poor animals that get abused, and no one thinks anythink of it..  I don't care if some have exotic animals, as long as they have the proper stuff to care and keep it, and love them, it's cool.. I'd rather live by a properly cared for croc, or lion then I would by a mistreated domestic animal any time.

Humans are truely sick to think that it's their right to do what every they want to anything.  The saying, "Let it roll down your back, like water off a duck" (something like that) Is a way to cover this sickness, and avoid responablity, of being less then human, being cruel just because, then expecting them to feel bad for not being able or not accepting that kind of treatment.  Blah, rants.

That is why I said properly cared for, which would mean, that the Animal has what it needs, inluding space.  I never said domesticate them, or would I suggest it, rather stupid idea...  and painful.

I stick by what I said. I feel safer with actual wild life then with mis-treated animals.

(just a spare thought, why do few seem to put a name?)

You fail to see my point, a wild animal you can trust to be true to it's nature, and thus you can prepare, and I'd feel safe knowing I rightly and safely for me and the animal prepared for something, rather then the abused animal which is more likely to kill you in an attack because you never know, and can not prepare for it. 

I'd rather work with wild animals, well treated... then I would with abused animals.

You people are hung up that I would feel safe, knowing I could trust an animal to do some kind of action, and be by them.   Rather then some abused dog, you walk by a bunch of times and one time it jumps and attacks you, while your not expecting it, much more dangerous.    I trust wild animals to live by the rules they know, survival of the fittest for most, and I know I could prepare fairly well and accept the risk rather then, some house pet that is a large breed, and attacks me because I have a smell on me that I wouldn't know would set the animal off, and I end up in the hospital or dead for it..  I trust wild more.

How about not letting someone own one if they can't care for them?

The real issue is Humans, as you so nicely point out, and as for wild animals, I agree, no normal private home (even rich) could care for them, which means I wouldn't like it or stand for it.

Though the only things being said here are how I'd feel safe with wild, and nothing on the main point of the thing... The flash.. Now it'd be nice to actually get a comment from one who watched the flash.

I think you fail to see, that the entire thing of it is, that you know there wild, and that they can and would attack you given the chance, so you prepare for everything, and make sure that both you and the animal are safe.

Yes there wild, but they do have a nature and it's not choas, there is order in all life, and if you understand it you can keep safe, by making sure you prepare or just not be around where you can expect danger.

Oh, please stop it, your border line flaming, and somewhat foolish because you assume wild animals = choatic, false, they do what they do because of there nature, and in that you can prepare and avoid major trouble. Why do you think, that they can take jeeps right by "Wild Lions" and not have it destroyed?  How do you think they film nature shows?  Do the animals honestly look choatic?  

If you can't trust an animal to be true to it's nature, then you are untrustworthy..  I know how dangerous they can be, which means I'm not going without a plan.  The fact that there are those who train "Wild Animals" shows me that there smart and they know what the heck there doing (animals) while we assume there stupid. 

Now how about an actually comment on the flash, and how they see it, now how I feel on wild animals, when the topic is on DOMESTIC DOGS & HUMANS.

This isn't cool, I am wondering why people would be more bent over me trusting a wild animal more then I would a domestic pet?

You more likely right, but I'm really wanting a valid view on it, from someone who seen it, and comments about it not how I choose to feel safe.  It's frustrating, to see how no one really reads for anything but material to flame or degrade, or even try to correct (annoyingly soo)

I would think that it'd be nice to debate withsome who watched it, even if they have a different view.. I would love the change of topics back to what I orignally wanted to talk about.

I guess that I can't make a refrance to how I would feel, and how bad it is, that I would feel safer around a wild animal then an abused pet, maybe that wasn't clear...  I'm scared either one.

Now if anyone has something to say about the flash, I'll be glad to talk about it (the point of the board right?) and I'll leave an MSN so you can do it without others who will take and run with a meaningless tangent that in all respects is only a small fractional, emotional point to something, and make it some huge thing of facts.

MSN - Kerns.noel@gmail.com

"In 2000, DEFRA and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals released a lengthy study that concluded that much of the aggressiveness attributed to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog">wolfdogs</a>; is due to the characteristics of the breeds of <i>dogs</i> the wolves are bred with since wolves themselves are not intrinsically aggressive and tend to avoid contact with humans."

>>9
You ought to be the next Irwin!
Rest of posters fail for being suburbanite yuppie scum who've never dealt with wildlife at all. Surprised no one just said to destroy all wild animals or dangerous breeds in the original thread or this one yet, because that's exactly what this sort of misunderstood fear leads to. *coughpetacough*

>>16
Especially stingrays.

>>18
How hungry is the wolf? Instead of your hypothetical trained attack dog, (no need for abuse for that), how about using an average pet  dog? And would you try that with a bear?  More importantly, which door would YOU open?

Don't try to rig the experiment to satisfy your expectations.

>>18
That's a really terrible hypothetical situation. The wolf would more likely than not attack you, because you stand between it and freedom. Wolves are very skittish and generally hate being too close to anything they might see as a threat. If you corner one, it _will_ attack you if you don't leave it plenty of room to get away.

The reason why wild animals are in the wild, and not just lions, is because they play a role one way or the other. To say that a wild animal needs to be in the care of humans "just because" is the exact equivalent to an excessively optimistic hippie who supports PETA, to the death.

The only thing we as humans can do to actually save the animals is to execute every featherbrained poacher whose phalluses are inflated from the number of animals they take pride in killing for the sake of entertainment.

We are, after all, animals with corrupted moral values, aren't we? ;)

Umm..while animals are indeed wild, but they aren't chaotically aggressive like some seem to think. I was watching animal planet a while back about a family that owned a pet lion. The lion was full grown, and a few of the neighborhood teenagers were petting it and talking about how cool it was when suddenly the lion attacked one.

Why did the lion attack?

Because the kid knelt down on the lions paw and hurt it. Was this really chaotic, unpredictable behavior? No. I also knew a lady who worked with animals quite often and was studying to be a large cat caretaker. She told me stories many times of being bitten by animals, and each and every time she knew the reason why, and it was a mistake she made that upset the animal.

Honestly, humans are the most unpredictable and dangerous of animals. If I went up to someone and punched them in the stomach, chances are a fight would ensue. How can you expect doing the same to an animal would be any different? I've been scratched by domestic cats for teasing them too much. So next time you see a wild animal attack a human try and research or find out if the human didn't do something to provoke it first. You'd be amazed how many dangerous attacks are the cause of our own stupidity.

Even a random attack by a bear in the woods might be its way of defending its territory from what it considers a dangerous threat. We tend to attack people who break into our houses, do we not?

So really I have to agree that I would feel safer with a well-cared for and loved wild animal, assuming I knew how to behave, than with an abused, violent domestic animal. At least the wild animal follows a natural order, and isn't mutilated beyond reason.

Because of this I agree a lot with the flash. Personally I feel humans are the cause behind a lot of violent animal behavior. Not all, but probably a majority. As for background checks? That's iffy, but a possibly good idea. As another person said, we wouldn't want to turn away perfectly good homes. And also animals will sometimes choose their owners, so we can't ignore that aspect of the family/pet process either.

If that is the case then there should be more restrictions on the breeders. Some animals may require a certain amount of aggression for certain reasons, such as a police dog needing to have the heart to attack when necessary, but training viscious dogs for the sake of them being aggressive I don't think is right. This is still not an easy feat, because each and every breeder would require a background check, and maybe even a review every once in a while. That's a lot of time, money, and effort.

But this still wouldn't solve the issue with home owners personally training the dogs that way, or at least mistreating them. It is one thing to want an aggressive dog to, lets say, protect your home, but another to do it by beating them nearly to death. In a sense, it's not an "ends justifies the means" sort of situation in my mind.