NorthernStarPits Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Some breeds attack more than others, this is a fact. Some breeds are dangerous due to the size power and tenacity they have when they attack. They also seem to attract dangerous owners. Dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist. It doesn't really matter if the owners or the dogs are to blame. Banning the breed achieves the same outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainy Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 My response would get me booted from this forum i cant belive how ignoant some people can be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirra_Bomber_Zeus Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Some breeds attack more than others, this is a fact. Some breeds are dangerous due to the size power and tenacity they have when they attack. They also seem to attract dangerous owners. Dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist. It doesn't really matter if the owners or the dogs are to blame. Banning the breed achieves the same outcome. Ok, I'll try for a calm response with no swearing Doing this in a bit of a hurry (I am supposed to be preparing for dinner guests, but hey ) so hope it makes some sense 1: Statistics show a large range of different dogs who may attack a person. However, the facts show that the likelihood of a dog attacking depends more on its individual upbringing than its breed. The breeds that do seem to make the 'top of the list' are rarely the dogs that governments look at banning. 2: I think it is incorrect to say that some breeds are more dangerous due to their size and power, however, a larger dog may be able to inflict more damage than a smaller dog in some cases. In the same way that if I was going to be stepped on by a horse, I would prefer a Shetland Pony to a Clydesdale. However, a large dog who delivers one bite and stops would inflict less damage than a medium size dog in a more frenzied attack. 3: Yes, it is correct that certain breeds attract 'dangerous owners'. Over the years the type of breed the dangerous owner wants to own changes. This can be directly influenced by the breed that is depicted as 'tough and dangerous' by the media at the time. The media has made this so. The government has made this so by 'banning' certain breeds. It is well known that making anything 'forbidden' will immediately attract certain types of people to it. This is an issue that desperately needs to be rectified by the media and the government. 4: (ok, trying not to get mad on this one ). I guess it depends on what you class as your 'ethics'. Personally, I feel a statement like that would be akin to saying certain races of people have no right to exist. If, the desired outcome is to reduce dog bites and reduce the instance of breeds attracting 'dangerous owners', then eliminating certain breeds will have no effect on this situation. Dog bites are inflicted by all breeds, eliminating certain breeds is futile to prevent this. Dangerous owners will always exist, they will choose whichever dogs have the most media attention at the time. Eliminating certain breeds will just make dangerous owners turn to another breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 where did it come from? Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leroy Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Sounds like the sorta crap PETA spout.... Gits.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravyk Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) Sounds like the sorta crap PETA spout.... Gits.... tbat came to my mind as well Edited February 22, 2009 by Ravyk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Thanks Kirra_Bomber_Zeus, thats a pretty good responce. Tony, just an email I recieved and they were the points made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaceyB Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I would probably tell them that ALL dogs bite, the only way to eliminate the risk of dog bites is to eliminate the species... I would probably mention that most toddlers bite too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) I'd add: Human bites transfer more bacteria than dog bites. So if there's a human on one side about to bite you....& a dog on the other. Pick the dog. Higher chance of infection from the human. But, then, an easy way to fix this problem, would be to ban all humans. Who wants to go first? Source: Management of Bite Injuries. authors from Prince Charles Hospital & Royal Brisbane Hospital. 2006 Edited February 23, 2009 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Thank"s Northern. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crest_Fallen Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I hope you guys don't mind a stranger joining in too. I would like to add that it is not about the breed being the problem, it is really about whose hands they end up in. The comment about banning toddlers because they bite too made me laugh because it is so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirra_Bomber_Zeus Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I would like to add that it is not about the breed being the problem, it is really about whose hands they end up in. So so true Crest_Fallen And thats whether its someone who deliberately gets a certain type of dog just to 'look tough' or someone who gets a dog and cant be bothered to find out the first thing about training them and being a responsible dog owner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushaka Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I would probably tell them that ALL dogs bite, the only way to eliminate the risk of dog bites is to eliminate the species... I would probably mention that most toddlers bite too... This is true... Im forever telling my youngest to stop biting the dogs!! I had my cousin here yesterday who was sitting there with Indie between his legs looking up at him with big sooky eyes.. I commented tongue in cheek,what terrible dogs these breeds are. He comments,"I still dont like American Bull pits or watever they are called. Ive seen them".. I said "yea,and when every you have seen a bad one,have you looked at the other end of the leash".. He said "yeah ,I know.. but still..." I finished off with " the media has done a great job hasnt it".. What more can you say!! Sometimes,it's not even owners with tough guy attitudes that have misbehaving dogs. Lewis for instance,is quite well behaved here,when he stays with my brother (joint custody deal lol,long story) he comes home like a kid coming home from grandmas! He is pushy,dominating and disobedient.. I huge mistake with animal ownership,is the owners need to feel that they are spoiling thier dog,and feel mean for giving boundaries. My sister in law for example said while I was there picking Lewis up,that he doesnt seem to listen.. She was asking him not to jump on her by using long sentences and going on and on and on,her voice becoming raised,and using her hands to push him down,with Lewis becoming increasingly excited thinking she was enjoying this.. This went on for a minute or two,until I walked near him, and said "DOWN!".. He sat ,and waited for the next direction. This is just an example.. You see it all the time,people on the streets with NO control at all. I myself have a LOT to learn,but after watching some people without the SLIGHTEST clue,it really is quite alarming! Wow,I rambled didnt I.. lol! :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I thought Hilter was dead, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyMontage Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Def agree it's about the owners a lot of the time. If OES were in the media and everyone wanted one, it may not be aggression (although could be!) but a whole lot of matted OES going into rescue. Some people just shouldn't own dogs, coz they don't understand what needs to go into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arawnhaus Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Some breeds attack more than others, this is a fact. Some breeds are dangerous due to the size power and tenacity they have when they attack. They also seem to attract dangerous owners. Dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist. It doesn't really matter if the owners or the dogs are to blame. Banning the breed achieves the same outcome. Every species has the potential for danger.Even a snail can cause choking and perhaps even death. I was going to elaborate on this more but why bother.Everthing can kill even lollies. Cheers Amy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Some breeds attack more than others, this is a fact. Some breeds are dangerous due to the size power and tenacity they have when they attack. They also seem to attract dangerous owners. Dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist. It doesn't really matter if the owners or the dogs are to blame. Banning the breed achieves the same outcome. As a trained academic in the sciences (who has already donned her flame retardant suit): - I would agree to the first three points, as they can be verified by statistics and abundant descriptive evidence. It is hard to dismiss the idea that a breed that is bred to fight has some fighting characteristics or a dog that is bred to protect under extreme conditions will tend toward fiercely protective animals . . .or the data on APBTs in attacks, or the breed description of the Dogo Argentino (or whatever the breed name is . . . I've never seen one, but would not like to meet a mastif-sized dog who is, by breed standard, supposed to display hostility to strangers). - I would dispute the last two points, as they are subjective statements of values that cannot be backed by evidence. Breeds have been adapted to new uses. Labradors, now the most popular breed in English-speaking countries and perhaps elsewhere, are rarely used as gun dogs anymore. Many of them are now sh*t retrievers, some are afraid of water. Lagottos, bred for hunting in Italian swamps, were converted to truffle hunting after the swamps were drained, and they're now being marketed as a non-alergenic house dog. There is no inherent reason why APBTs can't be bred into consistently good pets for an urban/suburban environment. - I would work to show that some breeders are actively breeding to eliminate the heritage of breeding dogs for the fighting ring . . . ie, eliminating the that attributes that make some dogs "dangerous", - I would work to show that breeds classed as dangerous have some wonderful, lovable attributes. AND I would loudly and publicly denounce people who breed dogs for fighting. Regardless of breed. I find it difficult to dismiss the evidence that breeding emphasises some behavioural traits. Aggressive tendencies can be bred up or bred down. So long as there are breeders breeding up the fighting traits, and people buying pups in order to end up with powerful, strong-jawed monsters to promote a macho image there will be support for BSL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa. Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”’ Ronald Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”’ Ronald Reagan Personally, I found Ronnie pretty terrifying. If you want to avoid having the person from the government come to help, keep your act clean. Don't breed for aggression. Expose dog fighters, or participants in other blood sports, to the shame and legal sanctions they deserve. If your dog is spirited and powerful, make sure the energy is channeled in directions that don't bring suffering on the neighbors or their pets. Fence adequately. I think most people would rather not have BSL, but given the actions and breed preferences of the small number of drongos who consider a vicious dog to be a status symbol, a large number of people have come to see it as a necessary evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W Sibs Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Some breeds attack more than others, this is a fact. Some breeds are dangerous due to the size power and tenacity they have when they attack. They also seem to attract dangerous owners. Dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist. It doesn't really matter if the owners or the dogs are to blame. Banning the breed achieves the same outcome. what a funny read! seriously, I've been bitten by 2 dogs.. one was from the most scariest chi i've ever met, and another was a pom who has some serious issues!! in fact, all the big dogs i know are the biggest sooks and are so placid and sweet... the small dogs are the ones i look out for!! and now i own a small dog... Edited April 17, 2009 by charleswentworth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now