On Wednesday 8 February 2012 (date as reported), veteran television anchor Kyle Dyer had her face ripped open by a near 40kg Argentine Mastiff, during a live television broadcast on a KUSA-TV morning show, in Denver USA. The attractive female personality, subsequently received seventy stitches to her nose and lips, as part of the reconstructive surgery required to (attempt to) fix her face.

Some background on the lead protagonist:

Argentine Mastiff, a.k.a. Dogo Argentino is a large white muscular dog, first bred in (circa) 1930 in Argentina, for the purpose of big-game hunting. The breeder’s objective was a dog of resolute bravery and the will to protect its human proprietor to the death.

The breed was apparently (inter alia) the product of crossbreeding – viz heterosis or hybrid vigor – the Cordoba Fighting Dog, Great Pyrenees, Irish Wolfhound, Boxer and the Great Dane – quite a menu, one would be forgiven to observe.

It is important to note though – Dogo Argentino is still a dog; for those who would want to suggest that such breeds are somehow genetically different (i.e. in one way or another “younger’ than), from the primitive canine sub-species of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the “Canidae” family, of the mammilian order "Carnivora".

The rate of changes observed in the DNA sequences of wolfs date some of those species back to 800 000 years ago. Current mDNA knowledge suggests the morphological split of dogs and wolfs happened around 100 000 years ago, with unique specimen evidence (i.e. tangibly discriminating what we see as the domesticated dog) from around 35 000 years ago. Thus, in terms of the three billion, or perhaps more.., -years of the paleontological progression of life on planet Earth, the friendly doggy playing with the kids, is still very much a savage beast by fundamental genetic makeup.

The rest of the script (here) comes with a disclaimer and a set of basic instructions and guidelines..,

1. This is NOT a cat versus dog debate. It is about humans and ‘their’ dogs – simple... It does not matter if I am a bird-person, or a crocodile-person, or a lizard-person, a snake-person, an ape-person, rabbit-person, fish-person, tortoise-person, worm-person, spider-person, cockroach-person, or what-ever-other-domestic-inmate--person I may, or may not be, the debate is still just about HUMANS and DOGS. So kindly keep at least one other ‘animal’ out of the essay – viz the RED HERRING...

2. If I say something, I am NOT implying the opposite. E.g. if I say I like coffee, it does not automatically mean I hate tea, not even remotely. As such, the debate would only be about coffee – the ‘tea-coffee-conflict’ is one that exists in YOUR mind- and/or little world, not in mine, or even in the realm of coffee. I.e. coffee did not come about as a consequence of tea; i.o.w. it coffee is not the de facto opposite of tea...

3. If a comment is made regarding human behaviour then I am not attacking anybody in person – so even if the ‘shoe fits you’ (hence the sense that you are being attacked personally), kindly refrain from attacking the author individually. While I could not give a rat’s... .., let me refrain.., a rabid rat’s rectum, what you say about me (as I exclusively take it from whom it comes and as such, it is more often than not, an ample compliment), it does not add ANY value to the debate. If you wish to comment on this aspect of the debate, then kindly comment on human behaviour as a topic, rather than sweeping conjecture about somebody you not know from your domestic doggy’s douchbagouche...

4. If you have agreed (or disagreed for that matter) with some of my previous comments (etc), I certainly do not expect you to agree (or disagree) with me on this topic; in fact I would be far more disappointed if your position has no tangible substance – i.o.w. you agree-, or disagree with somebody, just because you like-, or dislike them.

5. I am NOT a politician, thus I do not require a certain popular constituency to survive, or to prop up a strategic trust fund. I wish only to tender certain clinical verities and point out some of the desperate paradoxes that are inhibiting the human condition.

Back to the point:

I do not understand the purpose of owning a dog in the 21st century. For instance..,

Dogs are not as domesticated as we often seem to wish they were. E.g.

- They do not possess any measure of personal hygiene, so they will begin to stink quickly, if not perpetually maintained (by others, naturally).

- They are magnets for several kinds of unsavoury passengers (from fleas and ticks to the rabies virus).

- They have no public behavioural conscious, e.g. they..,

--- Urinate and defecate in public.

--- Have sex in public, often in a markedly uninhibited manner (unless there is drastic surgical intervention).

--- Engage in violent fights in public.

- They are inconsiderate by nature; i.e. they are generally noisy, disruptive and do not have an inherent ability to modulate their conduct. E.g. how often has trouble with the neighbours been triggered by a noisy dog..?

- Etc.

So you have to ask yourself, how appropriate are such ‘companions’, in a world that is getting progressively more overcrowded, by the day..?

Why do people have dogs..?

Being attached to animals is not, in essence, necessary for human health and welfare. This is fact. Studies show that people with dogs (and pets in general) live only slightly longer and may have somewhat better blood pressure than non-owners, but in the literal sense, we certainly do not need all those dogs (living in- and around our homes today) to survive.

Most definitely we do not need dogs for security (it is an overt fallacy). In fact, old ‘pooch’ is often the weakest link: prone to deliver false alarms that are by itself little more than “cry wolf” (pun intended), no less giving a false sense of security, but more so as it is a good indication that there is probably something worthwhile being ‘protected’. The chilling reality is that the “Inglourious Basterds” will easily, quickly and quietly, dispose of the four-legged ‘minor inconvenience’, when required.

If a dog..,

a. Is there to fill a psychological gap- or shortcoming, then I am afraid you have bigger problems and a dog will not solve it, in fact it will likely compel matters. It is a bit like the wife who falls pregnant because she thinks the wandering husband will then (magically) change his ways. Or, a bit like employing alcohol and/or other chemical- and/or biological substance/s, to smooth over life’s rough spots – the fact is, the core issue remains un-addressed.

b. Is kept for entertainment, it is exactly the same as keeping animals in the circus – it is a primitive relic that has no place in the 21st century (and beyond). It is simple selfish slavery.

So why do dogs have people..?

There is an alternative Darwinian Theory that is particularly pertinent here. It postulates that pets manipulate the same instincts and responses that have evolved to facilitate human relationships, primarily but not exclusively, those between a parent and a child.

Dogs must surely be the masters of the said acquired attribute/s. To be clinical: dogs are social parasites and as such manipulate human responses. Social parasites inject themselves into the social systems of other species and thrive there. They show a range of emotions – love, anxiety, curiosity and thus trick us into thinking they possess the full range of human feelings. If parrots can cleverly mimic human speech (on top of a range of emotions) then dogs should find the requisite emotional trickery mere child’s play (pun intended).

If ‘dog’ appears to be “happy”, the reality is rather that it is simply mimicking your behaviour, as it receives food (for its own survival) in return. It has no material understanding of any of these ‘emotions’ and/or behaviours. It is in many ways similar to a computer that is doing a ‘grammar-and-spell-check’ – the computer does not understand English (not even remotely), yet it ‘speaks’ better English, than 95% of its owners...

A dog will ‘rescue’ a human simply out of the fear for missing the next meal (i.e. part of its own survival instinct). E.g. if ‘dog’ sees the fat middle-aged blob that has been feeding it for as long as it can remember, busy drowning in a river, its first (and likely only) thought would be – ooooo.., f**k., who/what the f**k is going to feed me..!?!?

The dangerous dilemma:

Dogs will bite people – period. Not only is it part of its fundamental genetic program, it will do it if it feels threatened (again it is programmed that way), but equally if it perceives that its food-and-shelter benefactor is threatened. A number of dog-breeds have an over-developed sense of protecting the proprietor – e.g. as in the case of Dogo Argentino.

If it was up to dogs, they would not just bite people, they will eat them. Dogs are dangerous – even small ones. If not directly, then as part of a group dynamic – dogs have strong ‘pack-instincts’ and a “big” dog in a small body, easily takes the role of a leader and could amplify- and/or modify (aggressive) behaviour of other (physically bigger) dogs (e.g. the ones that will draw blood, if not segments of skin, meat and even bone).

I suggest that we should draw a line and make this the last generation of de facto domestic dogs to live among humans.

Domestic dogs serve no material purpose as pets and in fact create more trouble than domestic gain (if in fact any gain whatsoever).

More than anything else though – it is grossly unfair towards the living entity that is trapped inside confines of a paradoxical absurdity; a proud free-roaming feral creature at heart, but a pathetic parasite at mind.

This proposition excludes working dogs – e.g. assisting the blind (one I would happily concur is one of the most noble of occupations), search-and-rescue, police duties, etc. It is a completely separate issue, in every way conceivable, to owning a dog for entertainment and/or for therapy.

Get Published!

UPLOAD

Click here
to upload
your article Click here
to upload
your photo Click here
to upload
your video