Sheridan Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hmmm keep em comming OB1. APBT on whose account, ah yes the OP's neighbour said so, not the council, not anyone else.Of course I feel for the old fella. Let me ask you this. This guy sounded real irresponsible yeah, could'nt even manage the dog under a normal law, what makes you think that anything would have been different if the dog had been declared by an NOI by Warley some time back? An irresponsible owner is an irresponsible owner after all is it not? whats the thread about sheridan? I get the feeling the correct answer is that it's all about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 IF If If lol. What is so hard to understand that this bloke in all probability wouldnt have cared about the RB law? a fine lol look what happened. Are declared RB's monitered 24/7, of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Fantastic another 1 liner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 IF If If lol.What is so hard to understand that this bloke in all probability wouldnt have cared about the RB law? a fine lol look what happened. Are declared RB's monitered 24/7, of course not. That is why he would have been forced to, because on his own he didn't care and the other dog and owner paid the price. If he had to comply with RB legislation the dog wouldn't be escaping. He has just added fuel to the fire, how does this show people these dogs aren't monsters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Exactly jdavis, how is he going to be forced? he may not have even been declared with an NOI, he may have been breed assesed negative or found to be partially bred then temperament tested and passed. Look to the title of the thread. If failed, and an enclosure is built to appese council, how is it enforced. A buffoon dog owner is a buffoon dog owner, RB laws or not. Edited April 1, 2009 by NorthernStarPits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 One breach, he gets reported and fined or dog removed, I don't know how many chances they they get specifically. The consequences ensure compliance, even if it takes him being reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caffiend42 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Bottom line is - all dogs, regardless of breed, need to be effectively contained. By their very nature, pitty owners need to be that much MORE vigilant, no matter how docile their dog is, precisely to combat the public perception that they are dangerous dogs. Those that are deliberately flouting their Council By-Laws need to have the book thrown at them. They are not doing themselves, their dog and their breed any favours if the general public believe they are rednecks. And they are their own worst enemies when it comes to BSL - they're the ones hammering the nail in the coffin, but have the audacity to blamestorm everyone else. If you own a pitty you have an obligation to do everything in your power, and then some, to ensure it is safe, and others are safe from it. Don't go crying in your weeties if you don't comply with the law, which is also there to protect the community, and some people from their own stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 "he may not have even been declared with an NOI, he may have been breed assesed negative or found to be partially bred then temperament tested and passed." title of the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushaka Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 IF If If lol.What is so hard to understand that this bloke in all probability wouldnt have cared about the RB law? a fine lol look what happened. Are declared RB's monitered 24/7, of course not. That is why he would have been forced to, because on his own he didn't care and the other dog and owner paid the price. If he had to comply with RB legislation the dog wouldn't be escaping. He has just added fuel to the fire, how does this show people these dogs aren't monsters? WOW...that one line just put me WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY offside! these dogs are NOT monsters,and lines like that help NO ONE! ANY dog,bred,raised to hunt,left in suburbia ,could be a danger unless properly contained,and even then..questionable.. I have known a few people to label their dog a pit when it was just a cross of many sorts.. Why is it a mutt till proven otherwise with papers ,and a pit till proven otherwise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushaka Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Bottom line is - all dogs, regardless of breed, need to be effectively contained. By their very nature, pitty owners need to be that much MORE vigilant, no matter how docile their dog is, precisely to combat the public perception that they are dangerous dogs.Those that are deliberately flouting their Council By-Laws need to have the book thrown at them. They are not doing themselves, their dog and their breed any favours if the general public believe they are rednecks. And they are their own worst enemies when it comes to BSL - they're the ones hammering the nail in the coffin, but have the audacity to blamestorm everyone else. If you own a pitty you have an obligation to do everything in your power, and then some, to ensure it is safe, and others are safe from it. Don't go crying in your weeties if you don't comply with the law, which is also there to protect the community, and some people from their own stupidity. Had me till your final line... THese laws arent meant to protect the community..ANYONE with half a brain and a little insight KNOWS BSL doesnt work. Politicians know it doesnt work..its simply there to make the community THINK that they are protected against the media hyped boogie man.. We all know that.. Cmon!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caffiend42 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Of course they're not monsters - but to Joe Public they are. Partly because of media frenzy, but quite frankly, there ARE too many incidents that DO involve pitties. Chicken and egg. There are just not enough examples out there of people doing the responsible thing with these dogs, so the public perception is that they ARE monsters. And it's the dogs that suffer for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 IF If If lol.What is so hard to understand that this bloke in all probability wouldnt have cared about the RB law? a fine lol look what happened. Are declared RB's monitered 24/7, of course not. That is why he would have been forced to, because on his own he didn't care and the other dog and owner paid the price. If he had to comply with RB legislation the dog wouldn't be escaping. He has just added fuel to the fire, how does this show people these dogs aren't monsters? WOW...that one line just put me WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY offside! these dogs are NOT monsters,and lines like that help NO ONE! ANY dog,bred,raised to hunt,left in suburbia ,could be a danger unless properly contained,and even then..questionable.. I have known a few people to label their dog a pit when it was just a cross of many sorts.. Why is it a mutt till proven otherwise with papers ,and a pit till proven otherwise.... Not sure how good your reading comprehension is, but I said it was important to show people these dogs aren't monsters. If you don't realise by now that is what the general public think when it comes to pitbulls you need to get out more. How did you think that BSL got passed if ignorant people don't think these dogs are child eating monsters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushaka Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Of course they're not monsters - but to Joe Public they are. Partly because of media frenzy, but quite frankly, there ARE too many incidents that DO involve pitties. Chicken and egg.There are just not enough examples out there of people doing the responsible thing with these dogs, so the public perception is that they ARE monsters. And it's the dogs that suffer for it. proof or speculation?.. We keep hearing pit this pit that but we never know the real facts. Do too many wankers own this breed... damn straight and damn shame! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushaka Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 IF If If lol.What is so hard to understand that this bloke in all probability wouldnt have cared about the RB law? a fine lol look what happened. Are declared RB's monitered 24/7, of course not. That is why he would have been forced to, because on his own he didn't care and the other dog and owner paid the price. If he had to comply with RB legislation the dog wouldn't be escaping. He has just added fuel to the fire, how does this show people these dogs aren't monsters? WOW...that one line just put me WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY offside! these dogs are NOT monsters,and lines like that help NO ONE! ANY dog,bred,raised to hunt,left in suburbia ,could be a danger unless properly contained,and even then..questionable.. I have known a few people to label their dog a pit when it was just a cross of many sorts.. Why is it a mutt till proven otherwise with papers ,and a pit till proven otherwise.... Not sure how good your reading comprehension is, but I said it was important to show people these dogs aren't monsters. If you don't realise by now that is what the general public think when it comes to pitbulls you need to get out more. How did you think that BSL got passed if ignorant people don't think these dogs are child eating monsters? Joe public may read your statement and think you're in agreeance.. comprehension is fine thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushaka Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Of course they're not monsters - but to Joe Public they are. Partly because of media frenzy, but quite frankly, there ARE too many incidents that DO involve pitties. Chicken and egg.There are just not enough examples out there of people doing the responsible thing with these dogs, so the public perception is that they ARE monsters. And it's the dogs that suffer for it. Problem is,its like u can have 1000000000000 dogs that dont cause a problem... media isnt interested in that... ONE attack,and its all over the news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) The proof is in the pudding about Breed Specific Laws in print and on the news, we have had it for over 15 yrs. It is a law that means diddly squat in the real world from the start, and I think most know that. But some like to think it works and is great and is enforcable! well they keep on telling themselves that enough times and it becomes truth in a rose coloured sort of way LMAO lol. Edited April 1, 2009 by NorthernStarPits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caffiend42 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Had me till your final line... THese laws arent meant to protect the community..ANYONE with half a brain and a little insight KNOWS BSL doesnt work. Politicians know it doesnt work..its simply there to make the community THINK that they are protected against the media hyped boogie man..We all know that.. Cmon!! Who is this "we" you speak of? The general public, who just goes about their business, probably doesn't know that. It wouldn't surprise me one little bit if the greater population, who just happens not to be blessed to be a well educated DOLer , thinks that BSL IS a good thing, because most of the public perception of pitties IS negative. And right now, pitty owners, by and large, aren't helping to turn around that perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) .. edit computer accident Edited April 1, 2009 by NorthernStarPits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Caffiened I think most 'pitty' owners would manage there dogs wisely, I have rubbed shoulders ( and keyboards) with many over the years and this is what I have seen. I am sure most beagle owners, staffy owners and every other person with what ever breed they have just the same, majority would manage the dogs wisely, some may be bad eggs but it's the same in all from what I have seen. Bad apples fall from all trees. No more so than others. But when focus is on one all negativity gets highlighted. The gits who cant manage the dogs cant turn around any sort of perception, and I wouldnt want them to try. Edited April 1, 2009 by NorthernStarPits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 IF If If lol.What is so hard to understand that this bloke in all probability wouldnt have cared about the RB law? a fine lol look what happened. Are declared RB's monitered 24/7, of course not. That is why he would have been forced to, because on his own he didn't care and the other dog and owner paid the price. If he had to comply with RB legislation the dog wouldn't be escaping. He has just added fuel to the fire, how does this show people these dogs aren't monsters? WOW...that one line just put me WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY offside! these dogs are NOT monsters,and lines like that help NO ONE! ANY dog,bred,raised to hunt,left in suburbia ,could be a danger unless properly contained,and even then..questionable.. I have known a few people to label their dog a pit when it was just a cross of many sorts.. Why is it a mutt till proven otherwise with papers ,and a pit till proven otherwise.... Not sure how good your reading comprehension is, but I said it was important to show people these dogs aren't monsters. If you don't realise by now that is what the general public think when it comes to pitbulls you need to get out more. How did you think that BSL got passed if ignorant people don't think these dogs are child eating monsters? Joe public may read your statement and think you're in agreeance.. comprehension is fine thanks! If Joe Public reads my post they would see exactly what I said, "He has just added fuel to the fire, how does this show people these dogs aren't monsters?". Bolded it to make it easier for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts