In the true events that inspired this story, what was the real animal that killed all these people? or does no one know
shareFrom what I've read on the net, no one is 100% sure what killed those people. A large wolf was blamed. One was killed and displayed to the public just as they show in the film.
http://www.slydesblog.com/
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_G%C3%A9vaudan
I had heard that the beast actually was two animals, a male and a female of a giant subspecies of wolves (now extinct) native from the Alps. For unknown reasons, the animals should be emigrated to central France and they started to kill humans due to the lack of big game animals in the region. The pair was killed by a hunter that used, according to the legend, bullets made from a silver Virgin's figure.
This inspired the idea that a werewolf only can be killed with silver bullets.
That does not sound right. At the time, there still were a lot of big animals in central europe, but I doubt many of them lived in the Alps.
sharewell yeah most of these responses are pretty accurate(in as much as they can be) but yeah, it was never really sure, in the film, the way the killings stopped and restarted, that happened too, after the large wolf thought to be to blame was killed.
They figured a particularly large, savage, and maybe even much smarter than average wolf, maybe even a few of them given how the killings restarted, but obviously a group the died out, so yes, when some one has said it was probably a pair of wolves, that's likely.
'You should be careful what you say...Damn is more than just a word'
It's not likely. Wolves are always going to be blamed for what happened, but it wasn't a wolf, or wolves. In fact, i read somewhere that the killings had some odd things, which may have indicated a man in costume, possibly having a large dog with him.
shareA section of the wikipedia article mentioned that a lot of the victims had their heads either mutilated or ripped clean off. The reason I find that interesting is because my cat used to rip the heads off of birds and rodents that she caught when she was younger.
Maybe some exotic big cat (lion or tiger perhaps) that was brought to France escaped and caused the trouble.
Another reason why i don't think it was wolves, apart from wolves not being that dangerous, is that none of the bodies had that much flesh missing. If wolves DID attack people, it would be for food.
shareGuess we'll never know but the lion (big cat) theory is still my favourite. People back then would have probably assumed it was some kind of monster due to lack of education.
shareFace it people it was a werewolf!!
shareI find this discussion interesting. I have to say, I really don't buy most of the theories, and especially not the Lion theory - it's easy to say that French peasants would never have seen a lion, which is certainly true, but they would have known what Lions were. Lions had reached Rome, remember, and they figured in Biblical stories, mediaeval heraldry - don't forget the English King Richard, 'coeur de Lion'. Everybody knew about Lions, and even if you'd never seen a lion before, you would stand a pretty good chance of recognising it as a giant cat, I suspect. Of all the witness accounts, the Beast was never described in those terms - even though many of the witness accounts are typically varied and incoherent.
Wolves are unlikely for the opposite reason - the peasants would have known wolves well, and although wolves were blamed as the most likely killers, they were in fact seldom explicitly blamed in witness accounts.
My personal opinion, backed up by recent scientific claims, is that the animal was a hyaena, brought into the country and released accidentally or deliberately. Generally this answer seems underwhelming, but it's very sound on a number of levels. It may even explain the supposed human master, because this theoretical hyaena would have been tame enough to not fear humans. There are stories from Africa about Witch Doctors raising hyaenas by hand, and using these animals as weapons and assassins. Some tribal beliefs in African do not recognise the hyaena as an animal at all, but rather a demon of sorts. Who knows, if somebody brought it back from Africa, it might even have been purchased from a Witch Doctor.
You are referring to the spotted hyena. While that species was the biggest, strongest and most agressive of the three (spotted, striped and brown), the description of the body matches the striped hyena. But my point was that the hyena wasn't responsible for ANY killing. The hunter just presented the body and said it was the beast. The striped hyena,incidentally, is reluctant to attack people, although rare attacks have happened. The hyena, also, is most likely to have come from asia, where it was more common than in africa, where the spotted is the most common.
shareHmm... my understanding is that the body that was eventually offered up as The Beast was considered to have been somewhat underwhelming in size and appearance..? Surely somebody wishing to fake a Beast would just as likely have simply presented the biggest wolf they could find - especially as it would conform to the expectation of what the beast should look like?
On the issue of the Spotted Hyaena attacking people... no, sure, it's not really known for it - but most animals, including Lions, prefer to avoid people in general. Exceptions can exist, however, especially where the animal has no fear of people, or is forced to go after humans because of old age and dulled hunting instincts. I believe that there was an instance in a middle-European village where two wolves that had been raised initially as 'pets' were unable to return to the wild when released, and instead took to hiding in the village, and feeding on the children. This is very untypical behaviour for a wolf, but any animal can have it's behaviour perverted by human influence.
Frankly, if a common badger can go on a rampage and injure three people (as happened in the UK in 2003) because it had been tamed to the point of fearlessness, I'm sure a hyaena would be capable of the same but more so. It's noticeable that the animal had a healthy fear of cattle but an aggressive interest in humans. That's bizarre behaviour whichever species is under discussion, and it does seem to suggest an unusual familiarity with humans.
Just the last couple of years there has been a marked increase in cases of wolves attacking people here in Canada.
shareHybrids or feral dogs, probably. Or outright rubbish. Wolves are always accussed of attacks, and it always turns out to be rubbish,unless there was an outbreak of rabies. The most serious "attack" i know of was a man who saw a wolf fighting with his dog. He grabbed the wolf (would he do that if they were so dangerous) and was bitten on the arm, but couldn't be sure if it was the wolf or dog that bit him. And any wild animal being grabbed is likely to bite. Actually, i think this happened in canada, but i could be wrong...again!!
share>>>Hybrids or feral dogs, probably. Or outright rubbish.
I'd be hesitant to dismiss this kind of thing absolutely. It's important to recognise that almost all wild animals capable of harming humans have no natural interest in doing so and are best left alone - BUT, as I say, conditions can change that. One of the main popular opinions about the notorious case of the baby taken by a Dingo at Ayres rock in Australia was that it had to have been murder, since a Dingo would never do such a thing. This is absolute rubbish of course, as was demonstrated a couple of years back when a pack of dingos surrounded a father and two children in broad daylight and fatally wounded one of the boys (though they were unable to drag him off and eat him, because the father was present). Tellingly, this occurred in a tourist spot where it had been common practice for tourists to feed the dingos, this providing a direct association between humans and food.
I think it's probably wise to presume that any animal CAPABLE of harming a human being can and will do so if a combination of factors arise. This inevitably goes for Wolves too. Actually I seem to recall an instance a few years ago when a bunch of schoolkids were circled by a Cougar - again, very unusual behaviour for the animal, but far from inconceivable since a predator is a predator.
>>>Wolves are always accussed of attacks
I would certainly agree with you that it's far too easy for people to blame wolves, an animal that suffers from a lot of prejudice - and people DO get very prejudiced about 'dangerous' animals, while dogs may be dangerous to humans precisely because of their familiarity with them. But this is not to say it couldn't be the case either. In fact, while the North American Wolf is, as far as I'm aware, not formally credited with having attacked a human being at all, the same is not true at all of the European Wolf.
The principal reason for this is most likely that the European Wolves had more opportunity to cross paths with humans and lose their fear of them, I suspect. There are, in fact, records of Wolf attacks taking place within the bounds of St. Petersburg - one case that springs to mind was of a woman having been eaten there in the 18th Century. This supports my general point though - if animals are left alone, they'll keep themselves to themselves, but if they become fearless of humans (as a wolf living on the outskirts of a city certainly would) they may become dangerous. I believe North Americans have a perception of Bears and Alligators based on this philosophy - they're fine all the time they don't get in the habit of coming into towns looking for food, right?
All of which said, I wouldn't argue that the Beast was a wolf (or at least not a wild one), precisely because the Beast was so completely fearless of people, and sought them out as primary prey. I seem to recall that at least one victim was almost entirely consumed though - I mean, just part of the head was left, I gather. That's a pretty good reason to consider the hyaena as a suspect - notoriously hyaenas are capable of digesting even bone and will sometimes leave almost nothing of a kill.
And one last thought, a comment on human prejudice... a few years ago a lorry transporting zoo animals had in accident in the suburbs of Johannesburg. One of the animals - a leopard - escaped. The locals were appalled, hating the idea of having a leopard prowling their streets at night, and the authorities called in trappers. They set to work, and immediately caught eight leopards that had been lurking, harmlessly and unnoticed in the suburbs for who-knows-how-long!
> They set to work, and immediately caught eight leopards that had been lurking, harmlessly and unnoticed in the suburbs for who-knows-how-long!
I heard that one too. Didn’t they also catch a shark, who had been living for several years in the local area, who used to be a big fish in the local National Party?
No, you're thinking of the time in 1981 when Nicholas Ridley was outed by the British Shark Rights group, Fishrage.
shareHybrids or feral dogs, probably. Or outright rubbish. Wolves are always accussed of attacks, and it always turns out to be rubbish,unless there was an outbreak of rabies.
These are legitimate wolf attacks. Keeping it in perspective, when I say a 'marked increase' I mean a handful of attacks have occured in the last few years after no such thing happening for a long time. The incidents are conspicuous because they contradict what we expect in wolf behavior. I believe the average Canadian today respects the wolf as a wild animal, but does not view them as man-eaters particularly. There is concern in some northern communities however about human-wolf encounters. On the other hand the town of Churchill, Manitoba has been coexisting with polar bears for a long time.
http://www.cbc.ca/sask/features/wolves/attacks.html
Regarding wolf attack stories in europe, most are just that-stories. I remember a story saying wolves chased a sleigh full of people in russia. Yes-to eat the horses, not the people. Well, when i say wolves, that's the story, it was probably one wolf. Regarding america, a "wolf attack" was merely an accidental nip. A camper was trying to feed a sandwitch to a wolf. Not knowing how to take food from a hand, it nipped the hand a little. Also, people shooting at wolves, or otherwise provoking them are very quick to label the wolf's defensive behaviour as an "attack". Regarding the missing body, that would only fit your theory if it was a spotted hyena. The striped hyena doesn't have strong enough jaws to crush bone. My thoughts on wolf attacks- rabies (actually rare in wolves),hybrids or feral dogs,coyotes,misidentified domestic dogs, provoked or threatened wolves, and hot air. Occasionally, some people will say a wolf killed their animals to get them killed, and some people just believe wolves are dangerous, so say attacks happened.
shareOr, it could have been those pesky werewolves again. Never did trust a guy whose eyebrows met in the middle.lol.
sharere. the hyena theory, the striped hyena is much smaller than the spotted hyena & actually lives almost solely on a diet of ants & termites. possibly small reptiles & mammals as well. the striped hyena could not have did the damage of the gevaudan attacks. a large cat is more likely, i believe it was a large dog. some shepherd dogs are very large (to deter wild predators such as wolves & lynxes from the flocks) the beast had little or no fear of man (which rules out any healthy wild animals, especially wolves, bearing in mind there has rarely, if ever, been a verifiable account of wolves attacking humans. whet the dog acted on human orders or went feral or mad is debatable, but i would be uninclined, except on hard concrete evidence, to believe these attacks were done by any animal other than some large & strong breed of dog.
shareLikely a wolf of some sort whose circumstances of birth (inbreeding or crossbreeding) led to atavistic characteristics. Populations of feral dogs or wolf-dog hybrids have the same problem: they retain their affinity for humans but possess a primordial instinct to hunt and kill. Such a combination produces dramatic results.
Always remember to wear a helmet when spelunking, and carry three light sources
There was a story about a guy in america who bred wolf-dog hybrids. He was angry about plans to limit the amount of wolf that went into a hybrid. He said that the more wolf it had would lessen the risk of attacks. His hybrids were all wolf father and hybrid mother,giving a high percentage of wolf blood. The closer you get to 50 per cent dog, the more aggressive the animal will be. I believe his wife was attacked by one of the mostly-dog hybrids. She went into an enclosure with the mostly-dog hybrid and two mostly-wolf hybrids, and tripped. The dog saw this as weakness, and attacked her, challenging her for "pack leader". The other two kept out of it.
share>>>She went into an enclosure with the mostly-dog hybrid and two mostly-wolf hybrids, and tripped. The dog saw this as weakness, and attacked her,
That's interesting, and I can certainly believe it. Even so, as much as wolves may prefer to have nothing to do with people, they are wild animals and will do no human any favours. Being an animal doesn't they've signed a non-aggression pact, just that they mind their own business.
I was once in a German Wildpark next to a wolf enclosure, where the wolves were being rather lazy and sleepy, until a small child running along the path tripped over. At that point one of the wolves immediately stood and took a couple of steps toward the kid - though of course there was a fence in the way. I very much doubt that this was because the wolf wanted to help the child to its feet.
Mind you, I would think that wolves - like most animals - would only become genuinely dangerous if their natural aversion to humans was overcome by familiarity, or if some idiot tamed one of them. The actress Sarah Patterson nearly had her throat taken out by one of the wolves she appeared with in The Company Of Wolves - but this was a 'tame' animal. 'Tame' is generally a bad idea with species that have no long-term association with humans, cos most domestic animals have been bred that way over many generations, not plucked out of the wild.
Well, i might have been rash in rubbishing all wolf attacks. I admit, wolves HAVE attacked and killed children from time to time. A lot of animals, usually considered harmless, have attacked children. Maybe their small size suggests prey. Put it this way: the average adult has nothing to fear from the average wild wolf. If you dared me to walk through a wolf-infested forest (provided it was nearby), i'd do it without a second thought.
shareAlso, to people who say wolves must be dangerous because people seem so scared of them, remember that the average african used to be scared to even look at a chameleon, and several feared fish, including the barracuda and many sharks, have since been found to be dangerous only when provoked.
shareOh yeah...
Wear your wedding ring and go snorkling near barricudas...
I dare you...
That's not the result of aggression. The ring would glint, and the 'cuda would assume it was food. That's why bites, on the rare times they happen, are on the hand or foot. The hand and sole of the foot are lighter than the rest of the body. The people on some island, i can't remember where, used black dye on their feet.
sharehmmmmmmmmmm ive notice that everyone is using logic and detuctive reasoning.
i still think it clda been the last of its speices or some thing to that degree
Bring On The Deadpool Movie!!!!!!!!
actually, if you watch the company of wolves, you will notice that the canines in the film, bar one, were german shepherds. personally, i find it much more likely that the actress was threatened by one of the "tame" dogs rather than the wolf which, let us face facts, she would ave been hardly liukely to be allowed close to without the animals handler being A) present & B) in complete control of the wild animal. but who doesn't trust a dog?
share>>>actually, if you watch the company of wolves, you will notice that the canines in the film, bar one, were german shepherds.
Indeed I was aware of this, and I was rather surprised to discover that any wolves of any kind were involved in the making of the film - however:
>>>personally, i find it much more likely that the actress was threatened by one of the "tame" dogs rather than the wolf
...The problem is, I didn't just invent this story - it's on the official DVD commentary. The film's director recounts this moment, based on what he saw - he was in the room at the time!
>>>hich, let us face facts, she would ave been hardly liukely to be allowed close to without the animals handler being A) present & B) in complete control of the wild animal. but who doesn't trust a dog?
Well, plenty of people don't trust dogs. Clearly we're not talking about a wild animal here - any wolf used on a film set would have to be seriously tamed before it would even be useful. Also, your suggestion that any human can be 'in complete control' of any 'wild animal' is contradictory.
"Also, your suggestion that any human can be 'in complete control' of any 'wild animal' is contradictory."
> not really. the human in question would certainly NOT have any, much less complete, control of the animals instincts & hard-wired behaviour. but confinement/tethers (chain - probably a choke-chain) or some manner of cage/toughened glass container), or more likely, any large potentially dangerous animal would probably be drugged/sedated for use in a movie (not to mention a sharp-shooter in case things went REALLY South) why I hate seeing wild animals in movies, unless they are cgi
I've been fascinated by the story of the "Beast of Gevaudan" for over a decade now and while I enjoy some people's - such as Derek Brockis'or the writers and producers of "Le Pacte des Loups" creepy interpretation of the events - I think that that the beast(s) were nothing more than gray wolves. Apparently, man-eating wolves were not uncommom in medieval France. There is a great book about the Beast of Gevaudan and other man-eating wolves called "Wolf-Hunting in France in the Reign of Louis XV: The Beast of the Gevaudan" by Richard H. Thompson. Unfortunately, it is now out of print and I've seen used copies go for as much as $700.
Wolves have traditionally been seen as sinister animals - so it is not surprising that supernatural elements would be added to wolf attacks. Just ten years ago in India - wolves began attacking, killing, and dragging off children at night. If you read reports about these incidents - you will notice many eerie similarities to the Beast of Gevaudan - such as attributing the attacks to hyenas, werewolves, even serial killers.
http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/Wolves_South_Asia_man_eating.htm
http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9707/22/man.eating.wolves/
>>if the links don't work just google "man-eating wolves of uttar pradesh"
According to Wikipedia, in the entry "Beast of Gevaudan" there were two wolves which were the culprits, which wolves were killed at different times, thus stopping the attacks. Regarding the first of the wolves,
"On 21 September 1765, Antoine killed a large gray wolf measuring 80 centimetres (31 in) high, 1.7 metres (5.6 ft) long, and weighing 60 kilograms (130 lb). The wolf was called Le Loup de Chazes, after the nearby Abbaye des Chazes. It was agreed locally that this was quite large for a wolf. Antoine officially stated: "We declare by the present report signed from our hand, we never saw a big wolf that could be compared to this one. Which is why we estimate this could be the fearsome beast that caused so much damage." The animal was further identified as the culprit by attack survivors, who recognized the scars on the creature's body, inflicted by victims defending themselves."
However, according to the Wikipedia article on wolves,
"Gray wolf ... height varies from 0.6 to .95 meters and (26–38 inches) at the shoulder, with weight typically ranging from 20 (44 lb.) to 68 (150 lb.) kilograms ...extreme specimens of more than 77 kg (170 lb.) have been recorded in Alaska, Canada[7], and the former Soviet Union."
Thus, it would appear that the wolf hailed in France as an improbably large gray wolf was actually no more than average in size for the species, though perhaps large for the particular region. It would seem strange, however, that two average sized wolves could cause all the damage reported in the attacks.
The truth is it really happened. And nothing is further from the truth. So I think a man decided to make the wolf agressive and trained it like it was some sort of pet/dog. The FACT is the killings stopped and no other traces/evidences where found so I think one of those two wolves was the real one. But at some point I would like to think that there was a real hybrid beast some sort of male wolf and female dog or something like that. But why there would be only one case of hybrids of this kind in the history? Wolves are deadlier than dogs and dogs in groups can kill a man and even eat him! There were several cases in my country Bulgaria and even a CHILD was killed by street dogs. The street dogs are hungry and weak. If they are alone they become weak but my point is if a man really want's to he can train a wolf to be more aggressive and to obey his master. It can live alone without any hunting packs and become a real beast capable of killing so many helpless people. Why the killings stopped I ask? And was there a motive for so much villagers to get slaughter? Maybe it was just a psycho man who wanted to have a beast pet real killer. Who knows for sure? :( =( Still nice to discuss guys! Great postings!
Here is another interesting reading:
Similar events
The Gévaudan attacks were not considered isolated events. A century earlier, similar killings occurred in 1693 at Benais, in which over 100 victims, almost all of them women and children, were claimed by a creature described as exactly resembling the Gévaudan Beasts. During the events in Gévaudan, another beast was sighted at Sarlat, a prehistoric cavernous region just outside Gevaudan, on 4 August 1767.[3] Four decades after the Gévaudan attacks, more attacks occurred between 1809 and 1813 in Vivarais, when at least 21 children and adolescents were killed by another beast. From 1875 to 1879, more attacks occurred in L'Indre. All these killings, including the Gévaudan attacks, seem to have occurred mostly in four year periods. Attacks by wolf-like creatures continued to be reported in France up until 1954.[3]
So there really where other creatures wolf-like beasts killing many people. No one man could train the others for sure. Which is very interesting indeed what was the motive for the beasts to kill the people?
Wolves of Paris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Wolves of Paris were a man-eating wolf pack that entered Paris during the winter of 1450 through breaches in the city walls, killing forty people. A wolf named Courtaud, or "Bobtail", was the leader of the pack. Eventually the wolves were destroyed when Parisians, furious at the depredations, lured Courtaud and his pack into the heart of the city, where they were stoned and speared to death before the gates of Notre Dame Cathedral.
So according to the wolves of Paris there were wolves which kill humans just like that.
The beast in the movie was a lion (Panthera leo) dressed up in a suit of armor, but the real beast was probably a spotted hyena, Crocuta crocuta. A nobleman of the right time and place had a private zoo with a hyena in it. In the 1990s a hyena skin was found in a royal storehouse from the 1760s, so it is likely that the real Bete du Gevaudan was a hyena.
Some say, based on reports of the Bete having hooves, that it was a Mesonychian, which is a woolly whale that has mooselike legs and a wolflike face, but those have not been seen in the fossil record for 30 million years (only the sea whales like Moby Dick lived on after that time), so wolf, lion and hyena are all infinitely more plausible than a Mesonychian.
So, in all seriousness, the Bete was most likely a hyena. The movie changed it to a lion for artistic license.
Now, Mr. Markoff, why would you go and copy and paste your response from another thread? That's weak, sir.
shareHmmm so I really enjoy reading everyone's different interpretations about this story, and while doing so it got me thinking.
Everyone who discusses the wolf theories seems to do so from a decidedly modern viewpoint. Sure, the fact is that in this day and age, most wolves simply have nothing to do with humans unless absolutely provoked. However, we're talking about wolves from nearly three centuries ago. Of course in terms of evolution that's a very short amount of time, but I'm curious as to whether or not their behavioral patterns could have changed drastically since then?
What I'm getting at is the fact that, even as depicted in Brotherhood, the attacks happened during a time and in a region where wolf hunts were substantially more commonplace than today, with hundreds if not thousands of people participating at any given time to essentially practice genocide on the species. My question is, given the amount of bloodshed at the wolves' expense, is it not possible that, much like in the domestication theories, the wolves of the area could have simply become more conditioned to the presence and absolute fear/hatred of all men in general?
I don't claim to really have any knowledge of wolves so if I'm WAY off base here, I'd love for someone to let me know. But I mean hell, if you beat the living s**t out of a dog all the time, it becomes conditioned to have a natural disdain for humans in general...and we see it all the time when supposedly "fully domesticated" breeds go renegade and just rip little girls to pieces. So how do we know whether or not the wolves of the Beast period where not simply so threatened that they grew accustomed to fighting back in every scenario.
The primary reasons that I bring this up are A) the time period during which the events occurred. I don't know about you guys but 3-4 years is a LONG period of time in my opinion for any one or even two animals to have been able to get away with these deeds...even IF they had human aid (which by the way...although it's an interesting concept, I don't really believe it considering there was no mention of this whatsoever in the story until AFTER the beasts were long gone). B) The situations in which the beasts allegedly ignored local cattle in favor of attacking humans. I mean...what could possibly cause something like this to happen other than the widespread systematic slaughter of the animals?
This got to be way too long but finally I just wanna also add the story that the film The Ghost and the Darkness is based on, which is a very similar event in which two otherwise relatively harmless lions suddenly became man-eaters in Kenya and killed anywhere from 40 - 140 men. So I mean sure renegade man eaters aren't the NORM in most docile species...but they definitely happen.
I think the fact that more killings occurred in different periods, usually spanning a range of four years each time, really adds to the mystery and creepiness.
Maybe investigators should take a closer look at exactly who was killed instead of just who or what did the killing.
It was said that a hyena was the beast and the master was the same guy that shot him with the silver bullet.
share
Wich ever it was, one fact im sure off it wasnt wild wolves. Wild wolves do not attack humans, theyre smarter then that.
Only reason a wolf would attack a human being is when its cornered and attack is the only option left, wich obviously wasnt the case.
I find the suposedly explanation given in the movie very realistic. A group of men training a crossing breed of big dogs with maybe a wolf or another. Learn to attack only certain targets, woman and children, and use it to terrorise a region.
This is easy to do, with pittbulls for instance that is an easy animal to give it this kind of training. If you let it be abused by the targets you are aiming for over and over again, it will become very vicious against those targets when you let it out.
Its how they trained dogs in slave camps to hunt escaped slaves.
_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-
You had me until you mentioned pitbulls. That's when I lost respect for your post and your theories. Pitbulls are actually family oriented and protective by nature. They are not vicious by nature. They are used for fighting because of their jaw strength.
One of my dogs is a Chow-Chow, and they were one of the first breeds to be decendent of wolves. They're fighter dogs by nature, and have a history of being aggressive, while also protective.
Pitbulls (which I have also owned) are given a very bad rap. A long time ago it was the Dobie and the Rottie. There's always a breed that people like to single out.
It isn't the dog, it's the damn owner. The pitbull is the victim, the idiotic owner is the one to blame.
______________________________________
Sic vis pacem para bellum.
Read again, i didnt say pitbulls are vicious, i said, they where trained vicious. It still remains that they are easy to train to become that vicious, just like the others you mentioned.
And yes its because of the owner how a dog turns out, wich was my whole point.
_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-
There are dogs that are bred for specific reasons and have natural tendancies. What frosts me is when people "train" dogs against their natural tendancies. Push comes to shove, a golden retriever can get nasty if you let your kids jump on him and yank his tail long enough. I get particularly defensive, I will admit, when people jump to using pitbulls as examples because living in Boston where there are bans on the whole breed, it's yet another example of one kid who got hurt (and if the child is raised to be stupid enough to stick their face up to a strange dog, and the mother of the child has no control over their kid, well sure, let's punish the whole group of owners of the breed because of one incident).
Any dog can be "trained" to be vicious. (That is not the same as defensive or protective, and that "training" is just another word for "abuse." Abuse any animal enough, they're going to get mean. Abuse a kid enough, they will get mean as well).
Pitbulls get a bad rap, and I'm making a point that given their true nature, they are not "trained" to be mean, they are "abused" to be mean. It's not in their nature. Sort of like how golden retrievers are generally believed the more, uhm,...
______________________________________
Sic vis pacem para bellum.
[deleted]
I love the theory of an aristocrats bringing a hyena or some prehistoric animal from Africa trained to kill on command and so on. I don't believe it was a wolf, totally not a wolf.
share