Gathering of people and their dogs August 28th at 8pm at Point Pleasant Park
dogk...@gmail.com
Bill 132 in Ontario - when the pit bull ban comes into effect and when
dogs will start dying in Ontario. On the evening of August 28th there
are going to be groups of people and their dogs gathering across Canada
in Candle light vigils to pay homage to and listen to short speeches
and think about all the dogs who are going to be very needlessly dying
in the next little while and for the foreseeable future because of bill
132.
We're going to be having a vigil here in Halifax down at Point
Pleasant Park at 8pm on August 28th - up the road from the Shakespeare
by the Sea offices at the Gazebo. The parking lot closes at 9:30 so it
won't be a long drawn out affair - but it's really important that
people show up to show that there are people all across Canada who
understand and know about the holocaust that's going to be happening in
Ontario and that it's not going to be happening unnoticed by the rest
of the country.
We want to light candles and/or glow-sticks (depending on whether
there's a fire ban on at the time!) to signify that breed specific
legislation has lit up Ontario to the world - everyone is watching
them right now - and not for the right reasons.
There will be literature available about travel advisories and
travelling to that province with your dog - as well as other
educational materials about BSL. Breed specific legislation isn't
just about pit bulls - it's about ALL dogs - it really is about YOUR
dog. Come on Sunday August 28th at 8pm and find out why. And light a
candle for your dog and all the dogs who's lives are very soon going to
be snuffed out needlessly.
I uploaded a copy of the poster for the event at
http://users.eastlink.ca/~joansinden/halifax_dog_vigil.pdf if you'd
like to check it out and/or print it out and put it up in places where
people will see it to come to the event!
Thanks!
Joan
--
--
http://dogkisser.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/charlieloveshalifax/index.html
http://www.cafepress.com/dogkisser
Wonkey
children have to be killed by these dogs before people like you start
to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a total moron to
compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its like saying Jews
are dogs.
I'm sure that a few people will show up to your event (insecure people
who need a dog like that to feel cool) but just remember the vast
majority of people would support such a ban here.
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
Actually, the polls don't disagree with you, here or in Ontario. It is
a few people who have no idea about dogs that are pushing for this and
politicians replying with a typical uninformed knee-jerk reaction.
While the media jumps on events that involve pit bulls most attacks do
not involve them. Also, it is not about the dog, any dog can be bad, it
is about the owner. Even the veterinary associations are against breed
specific bans - but it is a way for politicians to make it look like
they are doing something, when in fact they are not. What is needed is
more rigid enforcement of animal control by-laws and convictions of
owners who do not properly train and care for their dogs (or any
animal). There are no bad dogs, just bad owners. Better to round the
bad owners up and put them to sleep, it would have more of an impact.
--
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
255 Melrose Crescent Eastern Passage NS Canada B3G 1P7
Ph: (902)479-2254 Cell: (902)830-2254 Fax: (902)431-0374
Email: t...@eastlink.ca
Wonkey
Sorry I can't find some Canadian stats but I'm sure it's very similar,
67% of dog-related fatalities in the U.S. have been caused by the pit
bull terrier, a breed that accounts for only 1% of the U.S. dog
population.
from the The Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges web
site.
I guess it seems that all the bad owners are getting pitbulls? Maybe
your right, lets get rid of all the pitbull owners, whatever works.
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
I did not say fatalities, I said attacks. And yes, bad owners do seek
out specific breeds of dogs. Go check out the drug dealers / young
'hoods' hanging around the city and see what dogs they have walking with
the, many unleashed and untrained except to fight - mostly pit bulls /
Am Staffs.
John van Gurp
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW wrote:
> Wonkey wrote:
>
> >Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too. How many
> >children have to be killed by these dogs before people like you start
> >to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a total moron to
> >compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its like saying Jews
> >are dogs.
> >
> >I'm sure that a few people will show up to your event (insecure people
> >who need a dog like that to feel cool) but just remember the vast
> >majority of people would support such a ban here.
> >
> >
> >
> Actually, the polls don't disagree with you, here or in Ontario. It is
> a few people who have no idea about dogs that are pushing for this and
> politicians replying with a typical uninformed knee-jerk reaction.
> While the media jumps on events that involve pit bulls most attacks do
> not involve them. Also, it is not about the dog, any dog can be bad, it
> is about the owner. Even the veterinary associations are against breed
> specific bans - but it is a way for politicians to make it look like
> they are doing something, when in fact they are not. What is needed is
> more rigid enforcement of animal control by-laws and convictions of
> owners who do not properly train and care for their dogs (or any
> animal). There are no bad dogs, just bad owners. Better to round the
> bad owners up and put them to sleep, it would have more of an impact.
>
> --
Sure Ian, but the various breeds are hard-wired for certain behaviours and
characteristics. Some of that can be overcome by training and behaviour
modification, but it's still part of the dog's make-up.
For example, a retriever will always focus on a thrown ball or stick. They
can't help it. My Scottie however is very easily distracted when playing
with a ball. She's tends to retrieve once or twice and then go about
sniffing the ground for varmints.
A border collie will always watch every move of its owner and will always
want to herd things. They can't help it. Do whatever training you want but
it will always want to do field work.
The various 'pit bull' breeds were bred for generations to be fighting
dogs with enormous jaw strength, a very high threshold for pain, and
unflagging determination in attacking other animals.
Properly socialized, it will be a loyal and gentle animal, HOWEVER many of
them appear to be owned by people uninterested in and ignorant of proper
socialization approaches, and as a result kids are ripped to shreds and
other dogs are killed and people are generally afraid to be near these
beasties.
You say that most dog attacks do not involve these terriers, and that
makes a lot of sense, it's a statement of obvious fact, given that there
are so many other breeds. The thing is, most other dog attacks don't play
out quite so poorly as pit bull attacks.
As far as better animal control activities; it's much more effective and
efficient to enact legislation banning the breeding or importation of the
breed. Also, Bill 132 is all about greater powers for enforcemnent of
animal safety legislation.
Cheers,
John
ali & ken briggs
<dogk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124411239....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Wonkey
jimd...@gmail.com
are a dog lover, and I AM, then buy another dog. It is that simple.
Furthermore, I think showing up at your rally with your non-pitbull
dog, is akin to showing up at an NRA rally with a pocketknife.
Personally, I think all dog OWNERS should be licensed that they
understand how to raise and care for a dog. Just the mere possibility
that a dog could be trained for violence dictates a license for the dog
AND the owner - just like other things that could be used as a weapon
intentionally or otherwise - automobiles and guns come to mind).
When the life or disfigurement of my children are at stake - you will
gain no ground with your ridiculous rally antics.
Donna Whitman
Pit bulls already owned within Ontario are protected so long as they
are kept under proper care and control. There are more restrictions on
them but they're not going to be put down if the owners follow the
more restrictive rules. No one will be able to purchase, import or
breed them from now on and they WILL be seized if illegally acquired
or not controlled.
Personally, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own a dog like a
pit bull of a Presa Canario ( the kind of dog whose attack on a lady
in the hallway or an apartment building led to a well publicized court
case). If they have kids around an animal like that, they need their
head examined.
There was a recent case in the U.S. where a woman went out leaving her
son shut in the basement because the pit bull was "nasty". She was
probably scared to try and get the dog in the basement. Anyway, the
kid snuck out and the dog mauled him to death. The mother actually
unbelievably said "It must have been his time to go". Too bad it was
the kid and not her.
Jim Iron
"Wonkey" <Jac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124452297.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too.
Agreed 100%
Jim Iron
"ali & ken briggs" <ken.b...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:05oNe.77219$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Jim Iron
<dogk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124411239....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jim Iron
ali & ken briggs
Watch out for those fish hooks..
"ali & ken briggs" <ken.b...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:05oNe.77219$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
ali & ken briggs
Well said John. As an am staff owner (shock and horror-- I know I know) I
think its wonderful to see more controls be put into place to protect not
only people, but the dogs that end up in the hands of poor owners.
If people could ever grasp that no children should be left alone with a
large animal.... then we would be all set.
I don't disagree with that part of it all, I just can't help but wonder...
pitties now, what next?
ali & ken briggs
>
> Personally, I think all dog OWNERS should be licensed that they
> understand how to raise and care for a dog. Just the mere possibility
> that a dog could be trained for violence dictates a license for the dog
> AND the owner - just like other things that could be used as a weapon
> intentionally or otherwise - automobiles and guns come to mind).
>
I totally agree. Lets start with parents first though.
Rufus Leaking
wrote:
>On 19 Aug 2005 04:51:37 -0700, "Wonkey" <Jac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too. How many
>>children have to be killed by these dogs before people like you start
>>to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a total moron to
>>compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its like saying Jews
>>are dogs.
Good (and important) clarification Donna. There's been some hysteria
that the Act will cause great numbers of the dogs to be rounded up and
killed, and that is not the intent at all.
Cheers,
John
Ann Onimous
Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
<http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.
--
Ann Onimous
ann.o...@gmail.com
Donna Whitman
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:47:37 GMT, Donna Whitman <NSBoo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 19 Aug 2005 04:51:37 -0700, "Wonkey" <Jac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too. How many
>>>children have to be killed by these dogs before people like you start
>>>to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a total moron to
>>>compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its like saying Jews
>>>are dogs.
>
>Good (and important) clarification Donna. There's been some hysteria
>that the Act will cause great numbers of the dogs to be rounded up and
>killed, and that is not the intent at all.
>
>Cheers,
>John
Except that I didn't say that. Wonkey did.
Donna Whitman
wrote:
>
>Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
>
><http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
>
>Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.
I certainly hope so.
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
>Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
>
><http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
>
>Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.
>
>
>
Yup, and they dog needs to be protected from the obvious neglectful
owner, just as the article states.
--
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
G. Wayne Hines
wrote:
>
>Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
>
><http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
>
>Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.
There was an interesting quote in that article:
“We’re animal lovers and we feel bad for this dog. If the end result
is the dog is put down, we feel bad,” she said. “Ultimately, it’s not
the dog’s fault; it’s the owner’s.”
gwh
Donna Whitman
An awful lot of sympathy for the dogs and NONE for the people
they've killed or disfigured for life.
dogk...@gmail.com
I am so glad that you've all been discussing this topic! Let me tell
you what I think about some of what you've been talking about.
Wonkey said: "Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here
too. How many children have to be killed by these dogs before people
like you start to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a
total moron to compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its
like saying Jews are dogs."
My name is Joan - does that mean that nobody before of after me can be
called "Joan"? If you go to Dictionary.com you'll see that is defined
as "a massive slaughter" or " sacrificial offering that is consumed
entirely by flames." It's a hebrew biblical term that was not created
for the attempted annihilation of the Jews by Hitler. And I think it's
an entirely approperiate use of the term. I may be a total moron, but
not because of the way I use my vocabulary or choose my words.
Wonkey said: "Bring your kids too, maybe we can watch them get eaten!
"
I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
a headache - but if parents choose to bring their children with them it
will give us dog-owners an opportunity to show them how to properly act
around dogs and how to approach a dog so that those children won't
become a statistic and any time they are around dogs in the future
their interactions will be loving and fun because they've been shown
how to give love to rather than torment and scare dogs.
Jimdo said: Pit Bulls and Rottweilers should be banned from Canada.
Period. If you are a dog lover, and I AM, then buy another dog. It is
that simple. Furthermore, I think showing up at your rally with your
non-pitbull
dog, is akin to showing up at an NRA rally with a pocketknife."
I LOVE this statement. Let me tell you why I got into the fight
against breed specific legislation - because I own 2 pocket knives and
a rottie mix - and I got the rottie mix AFTER I started fighting
against BSL and I intially was only going to foster the rottie mix, not
adopt her. I believe that fighting against BSL is about respect for
ALL dogs - different breeds of dog are as different as different races
of humans - as different as Chinese, Japanese, Nepalese, German, French
and YOU are. To say anything else is simply untrue. And I believe
that God is the one who decided who should be on this earth and he's
the one who decides who leaves this earth - not the legislators and
elected officals. And because all dogs are the same breed specific
legislation is being disprespectful to MY dog because they are saying
that a type of dog isn't worthy of being on this earth - a type of dog
that really IS just like my dog - so they're saying that DOGS aren't
worthy of being on this earth and that's just not right. Dogs are my
chosen life time companion - so I'm going to fight to keep them because
they may decide that the look of the dog that I own is next. And I
don't believe that the analogy of dogs as pocket knives and guns is
correct - I believe that dogs are like delicate flowers - they wilt
very quickly when they don't have any sunshine or love - but when given
lots of love, gentle care, love, fresh air and good food - they'll
blossom and be the most beautiful creatures you can ever imagine.
Ann said: "Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to
protect? - http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2 - "
We are very lucky here in the HRM in that we already have in place the
kind of legislation that people opposed to BSL are fighting to try and
get. We have "dangerous dog legislation" - which doesn't refer to any
breed in particular - it just deals with a dog who has proven itself to
be aggressive and owners who have proven themselves to be negligent.
This story is a perefect case in point. #1 I'm going to say that the
dog is in fact a pit bull - the lady in the story SAYS it was a pit
bull, but a majority of the cases it turns out not to be - so it may
have been a lab mix, or a hound mix, or a rhodesian ridgeback - it
could've been any number of a mix of dogs and the person doing the
running will call it a "pit bull". So I'm not going to comment on that
part. But this dog has bitten before - so ANimal Control has a history
on this dog - so that dog has already probably already been seized and
been taken away because the owner has shown himself to be negligent -
the dog was running at large and wasn't contained - so that dog will
never see his owner again. He will be in Animal Control for 72 hours
and will be assessed - if he's determined to be truly aggressive he'll
be killed right there. If not then he'll be turned over to the SPCA
where he'll go through more temperament tests - and I know the lady who
does the temperament testing at the SPCA and she's fantastic - he'll go
through a lot of testing so see whether or not he'll make a good pet
dog - if he's got any kind of quirks at all he'll be humaely euthanized
- but if he's a super dog he'll be put up for adoption and have a super
life. He may have bitten this lady and the people before simply
because he was hungry, or he had a health issue, or something we know
nothing about - the SPCA will fix it and adopt him out. But that's
they beauty of dangerous dog legislation - it legislates the
containment and safety of the dog, and if that is not complied with the
dog is removed from the owner - because the OWNER is negligent - the
DOG is not the one who suffers. Unless the dog is actually dangerous -
then the dog is killed. But the WHOLE BREED doesn't suffer - only
individual dogs - because of what that individual dog has done - and it
could be a cocker spaniel, or a poodle - it doesn't matter. That's
what we're fighting for. So I'm very glad you pointed out that article
Ann - it's a perfect example!
Lastly, Donna said: Pit bulls already owned within Ontario are
protected so long as they are kept under proper care and control. There
are more restrictions on
them but they're not going to be put down if the owners follow the more
restrictive rules. No one will be able to purchase, import or breed
them from now on and they WILL be seized if illegally acquired or not
controlled. Personally, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own a
dog like a pit bull of a Presa Canario ( the kind of dog whose attack
on a lady in the hallway or an apartment building led to a well
publicized court case). If they have kids around an animal like that,
they need their head examined. There was a recent case in the U.S.
where a woman went out leaving her son shut in the basement because the
pit bull was "nasty". She was probably scared to try and get the dog in
the basement. Anyway, the kid snuck out and the dog mauled him to
death. The mother actually unbelievably said "It must have been his
time to go". Too bad it was the kid and not her. "
True - living pit bulls born before a certain date are grandfathered in
in Ontario - but they have to be muzzled at all times and on a 6 foot
leash when off the ownerss property. Bill 132 also changed the rules
for dogs being sold for animal experimentation as well Shelters
selling dogs to labaoratories and what they're able to do to those dogs
is going to be absolutely horrific. As well - dogs seen as "menacing"
and what menacing is being defined as has changed - and that applies to
ALL dogs and not just pit bulls - so if your neighbour calls and says
your dog - no matter what the breed - is menacing and scaring them -
you'd better watch out. The dog-haters have taken over that province -
that I can guarantee you.
As for owning that "kind" of dog - fate has a way of changing all kinds
of people's lives Donna. You can't dismiss anything. I do want to say
a word about that San Fransisco case about the little boy who's mother
locked him in the basement to keep him away from the 2 family pit
bulls. It turned out that the mother was a bit of a fruit cake
(mentally unstable) - and the 2 pit bulls were an unaltered female and
male who'd been trying to mate for the previous couple of days but the
female didn't want to have anything to do with the male so he had
become a bit pissed off. The mother had publicly said that she'd
"never had a problem with the dogs before" but people in her
neighbourhood begged to differ - everybody said that "sometimes the
dogs were fine and sometimes the dogs were nasty" - so I'd say that
when the female was in heat that the male was protective of his woman.
The mother had locked the kid in the basement because the kid had
gotten in between the 2 dogs earlier in the day and almost gotten
seriously wounded - so she didn't want him to get more seriously
wounded while she went out - the poor kid didn't realize that he could
actually get killed by the dogs who most times slept in his bed at
night. Obviously the mother never told him about the birds and the
bees - all he ever saw was the mother slapping the male dogs ass when
he was constantly trying to mount the girl dog - which is probably what
he tried to do before the male turned on him to kill him. So there's
always several sides to every story, Donna. Another instance of
children left unsupervised around dogs - and another instance of if
this was another breed of dog - the same thing could've happened - if
it was a german shepherd the outcome would've been just as tragic. But
it was a breed that just happens to be the most popular breed in North
America right now.
So with all this said - this is why I think it's so important to come
to the vigil next Sunday - to show the rest of Canada that we love our
dogs - that we love ALL dogs - and that the horrible experiment that's
going on in Ontario is not going to happen unnoticed. And when it
fails that hopefully it will never happen again - that because it
happened so publicly and failed so horribly - and so publicly - that it
won't ever happen anywhere again and won't need to happen again. It
will have been documented enough - that the 1000's of dogs who will
have died in Ontario - will have perhaps not have died completely in
vain. Their deaths will perhaps some meaning and will save tens of
thousands of other deaths around the world - because breed specific
legislation will finally be seen for what it is - unenforceable and
useless. Generic dangerous dog legislation and education are the only
things that will save your childrens, and other dogs lives'.
And that's what we're going to talk about next Sunday - with all our
chosen breeds' by our side - at 8pm at the Gazebo up the road from the
Shakespear by the Sea offices at Point Pleasant Park - I hope to see
you there!!!
Joan
Donna Whitman
<dogk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
>their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
>they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
>a headache
At least they don't kill people ... well, not as a habit anyway.
- but if parents choose to bring their children with them it
>will give us dog-owners an opportunity to show them how to properly act
>around dogs and how to approach a dog so that those children won't
>become a statistic
Although kids DO need to behave around dogs, dogs that are by nature
vicious don't need a provocation. Never heard of a kid being attacked
just for riding past the property on a bike? Also, bad behavior should
NOT result in a death sentence.
> I believe that fighting against BSL is about respect for
>ALL dogs - different breeds of dog are as different as different races
>of humans
You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs are ......
pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them to stay in
the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I would
NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive. Comparing racial
prejudice with BSL is insane.
>We are very lucky here in the HRM in that we already have in place the
>kind of legislation that people opposed to BSL are fighting to try and
>get. We have "dangerous dog legislation" - which doesn't refer to any
>breed in particular - it just deals with a dog who has proven itself to
>be aggressive and owners who have proven themselves to be negligent.
You do realize that it has been used frequently to force people to
get rid of pit bulls. The wording may be more to your liking but it
has the same result ... which is fine with me.
>True - living pit bulls born before a certain date are grandfathered in
>in Ontario - but they have to be muzzled at all times and on a 6 foot
>leash when off the ownerss property.
Good. Sounds just about as it should be.
>As for owning that "kind" of dog - fate has a way of changing all kinds
>of people's lives Donna. You can't dismiss anything. I do want to say
>a word about that San Fransisco case about the little boy who's mother
>locked him in the basement to keep him away from the 2 family pit
>bulls. It turned out that the mother was a bit of a fruit cake
She sure WAS a fruit cake. Anyone who allows two pit bulls,
specially ones in heat, to live in a home with a child when she
herself is scared to them is in serious need of a mental health
professional. She should have got rid of them before they managed to
kill her son.
> So there's
>always several sides to every story, Donna.
Anyone who can defend a dog who murders a child by saying there are
several sides to the story is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. The
dogs side ... the mother's side ..... what about the dead child's
side. If that were a human that had killed him, you' ld be saying hang
him high but you're making excuses for a vicious dog and that's
unconscionable.
>And that's what we're going to talk about next Sunday - with all our
>chosen breeds' by our side - at 8pm at the Gazebo up the road from the
>Shakespear by the Sea offices at Point Pleasant Park - I hope to see
>you there!!!
>
>Joan
You wouldn't catch me in a mile of a gathering of pit bulls ...
not even with body armor.
firecat
> On 21 Aug 2005 08:07:04 -0700, "dogk...@gmail.com"
> <dogk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
>>their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
>>they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
>>a headache
>
>
> At least they don't kill people ... well, not as a habit anyway.
nor do most dogs.. pit bulls were bred to be involved in pit fighting..
they were bred to be DOG agressive, not human aggressive..and there is a
fair bit of difference when dealing with dogs of any breed who have been
brought up and trained properly.. people who own dogs whose breeding was
for a specific purpose need to know what the hell they are owning.. any
pit, rottie, german shepherd, or poodle can and will bite, hurting,
maming or killing, for different reasons.. dogs are dogs.. they have the
equipment, they are capable of biting.. point is, a breed, any breed,
should not be destroyed just because of what breed they are.. it may be
a dog, but it's still genocide.. if the individual dog has shown a
propensity to be vicious and dangerous, by all means put it down.. but
why is the dog judged guilty of killing people based soley on his breed,
not his actions?
>
>
>
> - but if parents choose to bring their children with them it
>
>>will give us dog-owners an opportunity to show them how to properly act
>>around dogs and how to approach a dog so that those children won't
>>become a statistic
>
>
> Although kids DO need to behave around dogs, dogs that are by nature
> vicious don't need a provocation. Never heard of a kid being attacked
> just for riding past the property on a bike? Also, bad behavior should
> NOT result in a death sentence.
>
you're right, bad behaviour should not result in a death
sentence..unless you're a dog, right? that's what you're saying here..
these dogs, who may very well only be defending themselves against a
child who hurts them are being given a death sentence.. i don't want
anyone to lose a child from a dog attack, but i also don't feel it's
right for someone to be forced to kill a family pet because someone else
didn't take the responsibility to properly train their dog.. and that's
what's happening with this legislation.. joe blow in ghettotown has a
pit bull that he trained to hurt people so he could protect his drug
stash, pit bull gets out, kills a child that was in its way, everyone
who has a pit bull has to kill it.. does that -really- seem right?
shouldn't the animals be taken on a case by case basis and dealt with
accordingly?
>
>
>> I believe that fighting against BSL is about respect for
>>ALL dogs - different breeds of dog are as different as different races
>>of humans
>
>
> You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs are ......
> pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them to stay in
> the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I would
> NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive. Comparing racial
> prejudice with BSL is insane.
you missed the point here Donna.. it's more a suggestion of cultural
differences.. dogs are different, according to the breed.. for instance,
i think anyone who has an Australian Shepherd and young children in the
same household in out of their minds.. these dogs were bred for sheep
herding in Australia, and their way of herding the sheep includes
nipping the sheep on the nose.. how many children are going to be herded
and nipped on the nose, possibly causing large amounts of damage, before
that breed is banned for viciousness?
anyone who gets any dog needs to take responsibility to know what the
dog was originally bred for, and always keep that in mind when dealing
with their dog.. it's people who buy a dog because it's big, or pretty,
or whatever, who cause problems.. they expect a dog to behave like a
fmaily pet with no effort on their part, and thta just ain't gonna
happen.. even my Fred, who you liked quite well, and trusted her around
your son.. she could turn and bite at any time.. she's part German
Shepherd, a breed known for being a guard/watch dog.. also a breed that
was a vicious killer in the 1970's.. she has teeth, she could kill.. but
i, as a responsible dog owner, never let my guard down with her, never
allow her to step out of line..because if i do, it could be dangerous to
her, or anyone around her.. it is up to me to have care and control of
the dog i choose to own..
just for the record, my grandparents' toy poodle was one of the most
vicious, sneaky dogs i've ever met.. would run after you and bite youon
the ass every chance it got..
>
>
>>We are very lucky here in the HRM in that we already have in place the
>>kind of legislation that people opposed to BSL are fighting to try and
>>get. We have "dangerous dog legislation" - which doesn't refer to any
>>breed in particular - it just deals with a dog who has proven itself to
>>be aggressive and owners who have proven themselves to be negligent.
>
>
> You do realize that it has been used frequently to force people to
> get rid of pit bulls. The wording may be more to your liking but it
> has the same result ... which is fine with me.
if the pit bull, GSD, rottie, cocker spaniel, whatever, is a dangerous
dog, it suits me fine for it to be put down as well.. but it really
should be on a case by case basis, with proper temperament testing and
proper screening of homes for adoptions and such.. my personal opinion
is that people should have to go through tests themselves to prove that
they will be responsible dog owners, taking care to be sure that they
keep their dog out of dangerous situations, and do their utmost to be
sure their dog never threatens a human without a damn good reason (human
threatening owner, break in, etc)
>
>
>
>>True - living pit bulls born before a certain date are grandfathered in
>>in Ontario - but they have to be muzzled at all times and on a 6 foot
>>leash when off the ownerss property.
>
>
>
> Good. Sounds just about as it should be.
>
>
if a pit needs to be muzzled at all times, then so should every dog..
terriers are one of the worst dogs for chasing and biting shildren.. you
just don't hear about it, because most of them are small and don't
create the amount of damage pits do.. but in my opinion, a
terrier/poodle/golden retriever shouldn't have any more rights than a
pit/rottie/german shepherd.. a dog that has shown unwarranted agression
towards people needs to be evaluated by a professional animal
behaviourist to decide whether the dog is a threat, then dealt with
accordingly..on a case by case basis
>
>
>
>>As for owning that "kind" of dog - fate has a way of changing all kinds
>>of people's lives Donna. You can't dismiss anything. I do want to say
>>a word about that San Fransisco case about the little boy who's mother
>>locked him in the basement to keep him away from the 2 family pit
>>bulls. It turned out that the mother was a bit of a fruit cake
>
>
> She sure WAS a fruit cake. Anyone who allows two pit bulls,
> specially ones in heat, to live in a home with a child when she
> herself is scared to them is in serious need of a mental health
> professional. She should have got rid of them before they managed to
> kill her son.
>
>
you could also put the argument that if the child had done what he was
told, and stayed in the basement as he was told, he would be alive
today.. it's extremely sad that this child was killed..it's extremely
irresponsible of the mother for allowing it to happen.. the child was
being a child..disobediance is fairly normal.. the dog was being a dog..
protecting his mate is also normal.. again, a case of someone not
knowing what they are dealing with and allowing a horrible tragedy to
occur.. the fault in this case lies directly and totally with the
mother.. she allowed this to happen.. at the same time, if the dog had
prior complaints, it should have been evaluated and dealt with.. the
parent should not have been permitted to own a dog if she could not be
trusted to exercise good judgement..which she certainly didn't do..
>
>
>>So there's
>>always several sides to every story, Donna.
>
>
> Anyone who can defend a dog who murders a child by saying there are
> several sides to the story is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. The
> dogs side ... the mother's side ..... what about the dead child's
> side. If that were a human that had killed him, you' ld be saying hang
> him high but you're making excuses for a vicious dog and that's
> unconscionable.
>
>
the dog didn't murder the child..dogs don't murder, that's a human
concept.. the dog did what was natural and defended himself and his mate
against what he perceived as a threat.. it isn't right that it happened,
but any responsible, knowledgeable dog owner would have the brains to
know that leaving a child alone with two intact dogs is a recipe for
disaster.. the breed involved has nothing to do with it.. i've heard
similar stories about labrador retrievers, newfoundland dogs, and even
chihuahuas.. it's natural canine behaviour and the parent should have
known better..
>
>
>>And that's what we're going to talk about next Sunday - with all our
>>chosen breeds' by our side - at 8pm at the Gazebo up the road from the
>>Shakespear by the Sea offices at Point Pleasant Park - I hope to see
>>you there!!!
>>
>>Joan
>
>
> You wouldn't catch me in a mile of a gathering of pit bulls ...
> not even with body armor.
that is entirely your choice, and i would never attempt to tell someone
to go somewhere they are not comfortable.. it would be nice though, if
you were able to meet some of the pits i've met.. they are all really
great dogs..i've never met a nasty one..although i do know they are out
there.. i have, however, met a beagle recently that i wouldn't touch
with a ten foot pole because the thing would bite you as soon as look at
you.. i've also met nasty dogs of other breeds.. a nasty dog is a nasty
dog.. they exist in all breeds.. i'd rather meet up with a nasty pit
bull (50 pounds or so) than a nasty Newfoundland or English Mastiff
upwards of 150 pounds and much larger jaws)
Wonkey
the moron', not just moron - I think it will help everyone refer to you
more accurately. You must have been a sorry child whose parents were
'not really that big a fan of' her. You may want to consider spending
more time interacting with humans instead of your dogs. You seem to
want to make this about all dogs in an attempt to get the support of
more dog owners, but its still just about a dangerous breed. I know
you have no experience with people, children or otherwise, but next
time you are at the mall, just try explaining to a two year old that if
you go near the doggie and grab its tail you will get your head torn
off. If we have to put all the pitbulls down in Canada to save just
one child then lets do it, it likely will never be Joan's kids, but it
may be yours or mine.
Donna Whitman
wrote:
>Donna Whitman wrote:
>> On 21 Aug 2005 08:07:04 -0700, "dogk...@gmail.com"
>> <dogk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
>>>their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
>>>they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
>>>a headache
>>
>>
>> At least they don't kill people ... well, not as a habit anyway.
>
>nor do most dogs.. pit bulls were bred to be involved in pit fighting..
Sorry, certainly didn't mean to imply that ALL dogs do but certain
breeds ARE bred to be aggressive and should not be allowed loose in
the community or kept near children.
>they were bred to be DOG agressive, not human aggressive..and there is a
>fair bit of difference when dealing with dogs of any breed who have been
>brought up and trained properly.. people who own dogs whose breeding was
>for a specific purpose need to know what the hell they are owning.. any
>pit, rottie, german shepherd, or poodle can and will bite, hurting,
>maming or killing, for different reasons.. dogs are dogs.. they have the
>equipment, they are capable of biting.. point is, a breed, any breed,
>should not be destroyed just because of what breed they are.. it may be
>a dog, but it's still genocide.. if the individual dog has shown a
>propensity to be vicious and dangerous, by all means put it down.. but
>why is the dog judged guilty of killing people based soley on his breed,
>not his actions?
Because, as someone posted yesterday, something like 65% of all
dog injuries and deaths are caused by the specific breeds that Ontario
is trying to control. ANY dog has the equipment and, because of abuse
or neglect, could do such damage but certain breeds need little if any
provocation to do what they are hard wired to do.
If I were to attempt to kick your dog in the head, I would
probably get bitten. I am at risk to even pat a pit bull who doesn't
know me.
Ann Onimous
>We are very lucky here in the HRM in that we already have in place the
>kind of legislation that people opposed to BSL are fighting to try and
>get. We have "dangerous dog legislation"
Which obviously is not working. Ask the people who were attacked how "lucky"
they feel.
>- which doesn't refer to any
>breed in particular - it just deals with a dog who has proven itself to
>be aggressive and owners who have proven themselves to be negligent.
So how many times does a dog get to attack people before it is determined to
be "aggressive"?
>So I'm very glad you pointed out that article Ann - it's a perfect example!
>
Yes, it's a perfect example of a pitbull that should not have been out roaming
the streets so that it could attack innocent people.
I think we do need a Breed Specific Legislation, and I hope we can follow
Ontario's lead. Most species of dog are relatively harmless, they are not a
real threat to humans. Some breeds, such as pitbulls, however are quite
powerful, and combined with their aggressive nature are capable of inflicting
great harm or even killing a human being. There is simply no need for these
types of breeds when so many others are available.
--
Ann Onimous
ann.o...@gmail.com
firecat
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:20:26 GMT, firecat <fir...@someplace.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Donna Whitman wrote:
>>
>>>On 21 Aug 2005 08:07:04 -0700, "dogk...@gmail.com"
>>><dogk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
>>>>their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
>>>>they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
>>>>a headache
>>>
>>>
>>> At least they don't kill people ... well, not as a habit anyway.
>>
>>nor do most dogs.. pit bulls were bred to be involved in pit fighting..
>
>
>
> Sorry, certainly didn't mean to imply that ALL dogs do but certain
> breeds ARE bred to be aggressive and should not be allowed loose in
> the community or kept near children.
the thing that most people seem to not realize is that pit bulls were
bred to be agressive toward other dogs..they were trained to be
agressive toward people.. rotties, on the other hand, were bred by the
germans to be agressive toward unknown people.. that's why they were
such great dogs for guard duty at prisons..
a pit bull, according to its breeding purpose, was bred to fight other
dogs in a pit..if the dog was agressive toward it's handler, it was
killed..they did not tolerate human agression in the breed, because the
handler had to always be able to grab the dog and remove it from the
fight..not all pit fights were to the death, and a favoured fighting
stud dog was a valuable asset..they didn't want him dead, so they had to
be able to interrupt the dog fight and seperate the dogs.. if the breed
was bred to be human agressive, this would not have been possible..
it is human training over the past 15 years that has given the breed the
bad name it now has..people who train them to be human agressive are the
problem with the breed, not the dogs.. the breed itself, when brought up
in a home where the person training them knows what the dog's natural
tendencies are, can be a very gentle and loving family member.. it takes
a lot of work, and i still would never leave a pit and small children
unsupervised, but then again, i won't leave my dog unsupervised with
small children.. the breed of the future decade won't be a pit.. it
will be something else, some other breed that has been around for
hundreds of years, calmly minding its own business, doing what it was
bred to do..then it will suddenly be popular and end up being the
vicious breed..
pits have been in existence in fairly large numbers for about 100 years
or more.. why haven't they been vicious child killers in all that time?
why suddenly are they that way now? i'll tell you.. it's for the same
reason the GSD was in the 70's, and the doberman in the 80's.. the breed
suddenly became popular, indiscriminate breeding cause temperament
issues, and human intervention caused viciousness.. the media hype has
caused this breed to become the current fashion for undesireable groups
of people who want a vicious dog to protect their product, among other
things.. if people had to go through testing to determine their
temperament, and whether or not they should own a dog of any breed, but
specifically the 'harder' breeds, then we wouldn't have these problems..
responsible dog owners would put their dog down at the first sign of
viciousness, not encourage it until the animal was out of control.. most
of the dogs you hear about in the news who have attacked people are dogs
that are out of control.. dogs that, for whatever reason, have found
their way into the hands of people who cannot control them, or do not
want them controlled..
the case discussed previously is a perfect example, as is the case of
the teacher in California killed by the Presa Canarios.. those dogs were
also in the hands of people who had no control over them.. when the full
stories come out on the dog owners in most of these attacks, you find
out that the owner has not shown responsibility by either training their
dog properly, or by dealing with it acordingly when it has shown
agressive tendencies.. if they had been responsible when the first
possible problem showed itself, the end result would never have
happened, no one would have died..
>
>
>>they were bred to be DOG agressive, not human aggressive..and there is a
>>fair bit of difference when dealing with dogs of any breed who have been
>>brought up and trained properly.. people who own dogs whose breeding was
>>for a specific purpose need to know what the hell they are owning.. any
>>pit, rottie, german shepherd, or poodle can and will bite, hurting,
>>maming or killing, for different reasons.. dogs are dogs.. they have the
>>equipment, they are capable of biting.. point is, a breed, any breed,
>>should not be destroyed just because of what breed they are.. it may be
>>a dog, but it's still genocide.. if the individual dog has shown a
>>propensity to be vicious and dangerous, by all means put it down.. but
>>why is the dog judged guilty of killing people based soley on his breed,
>>not his actions?
>
>
> Because, as someone posted yesterday, something like 65% of all
> dog injuries and deaths are caused by the specific breeds that Ontario
> is trying to control. ANY dog has the equipment and, because of abuse
> or neglect, could do such damage but certain breeds need little if any
> provocation to do what they are hard wired to do.
>
> If I were to attempt to kick your dog in the head, I would
> probably get bitten. I am at risk to even pat a pit bull who doesn't
> know me.
>
the breeds that are 'hard wired' to attack people.. what are they
specifically? certainly not pits, who were hard-wired to be dog
agressive.. meh..regardless, that's kind of the point i'm trying to
make.. the dogs that you consider 'hard-wired' to be agressive are not
killers by nature, they are made into killers by the people who own
them.. those same dogs, brought up with a firm hand, taught from the
beginning what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, can, and often do,
become wonderful family pets that are properly protective over their
pack.. the ones that aren't in homes with responsible owners become out
of control, and feel they are the alpha dog in the pack, that's where
the problems begin..
i agree with dog control.. i honestly do.. i think that any agressive.
vicious, or dangerous dog should be evaluated and put down if it is
deemed to be a temperament problem.. if the dog isn't in pain, or isn't
being tormented to the point it must react to defend itself.. you know
how much i love dogs, you also know my opinion regarding what is and
isn't acceptable behaviour from a dog, any dog, but specifically my
own.. so, you know where i'm coming from.. :)
to be quite honest, you'd be at risk to pet any dog who doesn't know
you, not just a pit.. most dogs are wary of strangers, therefore are not
trustworthy.. it's a natural instinct in most breeds to be wary.. there
are obviously exceptions, but generally that is the case..
Gimme a Break
were born a particular breed...Thats ludicrous....I can train a poodle, a
german shepherd, or a chiuhua<sp> to be aggressive....so does that mean we
should be putting down those breeds too....what a bunch of crap....it's the
same old adage....bullets don't kill...people do! If a dog attacks or kills
someone then the owner should face the charges as if they had done it
themselves. Your dog kills someone then you face murder charges...pretty
simple...otherwise ban having dogs altogether.
"Ann Onimous" <ann.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9w2Oe.201481$HI.170536@edtnps84...
G. Wayne Hines
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:15:20 GMT, G. Wayne Hines
I didn't see anything in the article about "sympathy for the dogs".
gwh
G. Wayne Hines
<vem40...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm Sorry, But under no circumstances should a dog be put down because they
>were born a particular breed...Thats ludicrous....I can train a poodle, a
>german shepherd, or a chiuhua<sp> to be aggressive....so does that mean we
>should be putting down those breeds too....what a bunch of crap....it's the
>same old adage....bullets don't kill...people do! If a dog attacks or kills
>someone then the owner should face the charges as if they had done it
>themselves. Your dog kills someone then you face murder charges...pretty
>simple...otherwise ban having dogs altogether.
The justice system/government is incapable of understanding the issues
involved in a perceived problem, so we get things like the federal gun
control fiasco and breed bans. The sad part is so many people believe
what they are fed by the politicians.
gwh
Donna Whitman
<w.d....@nospam.ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:53:30 GMT, Donna Whitman <NSBoo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:15:20 GMT, G. Wayne Hines
>><w.d....@nospam.ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:49:44 GMT, Ann Onimous <ann.o...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
>>>>
>>>><http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
>>>>
>>>>Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.
>>>
>>>There was an interesting quote in that article:
>>>
>>>“We’re animal lovers and we feel bad for this dog. If the end result
>>>is the dog is put down, we feel bad,” she said. “Ultimately, it’s not
>>>the dog’s fault; it’s the owner’s.”
>>>
>>>gwh
>>
>> An awful lot of sympathy for the dogs and NONE for the people
>>they've killed or disfigured for life.
>
>I didn't see anything in the article about "sympathy for the dogs".
>
>gwh
Feel bad for seems to express sympathy to me.
dogk...@gmail.com
are ...... pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them
to stay in the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I
would NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive. Comparing
racial prejudice with BSL is insane. "
Yes, I have to admit that I am one of those silly people who see all
living things as actually being alive - living, breathing, alive beings
who breathe, are born, live, and die - who have feelings, have good
days, bad days, like certain foods over other foods, prefer to sleep on
soft surfaces over concrete, would rather sleep in a dry spot than in
wet mud, feel much better after they've had a good crap - and just like
humans - I do NOT have the right to determine whether live or die based
COMPLETELY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY LOOK OR WHERE THEY WERE BORN. Now -
if they've gone out and killed a bunch or people and been found guilty
of heinous crimes, that's something different entirely - I am actually
in favour of the death penalty for humans - so why wouldn't I be in
favour of the same thing for dogs? But I would never want a human
killed because they were butt ugly. I would've been dead years ago -
and maybe you would've been too - I've never met you.
But I believe that dogs, cats, humans, pigs, cows, and all animals are
all equally alive and all should be treated equally. I will NOT
apologize for that.
And I'd like to thank you Firecat for coming into the conversation - I
hope Fred is okay!! He must be getting up there now in age! I hope you
can make it to the vigil - I'm going to be bringing Charlie with me -
Leonard has gone up to Toronto to live with her father so she won't be
there. Do you ever see April anymore? I always really appreciate your
posts - they're always VERY well articulated and RIGHT! haha! Going
to your idea of your family's toy poodle - I've got a little bichon mix
who will NOT be at the vigil because of her dog aggression problem.
Charlie - who is 110 pounds is a perfect ambassador for dog-dom and can
go anywhere - Buttercup on the other hand has been banned for many
places because of her incorrigible behaviour.
Wonkey said: "Thanks for providing your name Joan, now I will refer to
you as 'Joan the moron', not just moron - I think it will help everyone
refer to you more accurately. You must have been a sorry child whose
parents were 'not really that big a fan of' her. You may want to
consider spending more time interacting with humans instead of your
dogs"
I have no idea why people always think that just because an adult has
an affinity for having dogs as companions in their life society thinks
it's because of the way their parent's raised them and there must have
been some deficiency in their childhood. I had a perfectly normal
childhood. Those kind of statements always confuse me. And I'm
surprised that you decided to continue with using the word moron in
close association with my name Mr Moron when you saw that I take
advantage of the website Dictionary.com - I went and looked up your
user name "Wonkey" - it's defined as "Probably alteration of dialectal
wanky, alteration of wankle, from Middle English - Shaky; feeble,
wrong, awry - so I think you hit the head on the nail when you picked
your name that you use on the internet!! haha! I also looked up moron
so that you wouldn't have to waste time go looking it up: "A person of
mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and
generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree
of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a
classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive"
- so it's basically just an archaic term that no one uses anymore and
people just find offensive now - I'm not offended - I never take
anything said about me on the internet personally because you don't
KNOW me - I'm just bemused.
Gimme a Break
<dogk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124660266....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Donna said: "You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs
> are ...... pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them
> to stay in the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I
> would NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive.
Dogs aren't bred to be aggressive...they're trained that way....there's a
difference....and who trains them....Humans! So therefore any human who
trains an animal to be agressive and that animal hurts or kills someone, the
owner should be held accountable.
Heather Morrison
"firecat" <fir...@someplace.com> wrote in message
news:eR1Oe.192851$9A2.76382@edtnps89...
> you missed the point here Donna.. it's more a suggestion of cultural
> differences.. dogs are different, according to the breed.. for instance, i
> think anyone who has an Australian Shepherd and young children in the same
> household in out of their minds.. these dogs were bred for sheep herding
> in Australia, and their way of herding the sheep includes nipping the
> sheep on the nose.. how many children are going to be herded and nipped on
> the nose, possibly causing large amounts of damage, before that breed is
> banned for viciousness?
>
<snip all sorts of other really great points>
Ok..Ms Cat..I have to step in here..*G* As an Auntie to an Aussie I have to
say that this comes down to the same issue as Pit Bulls. The owners need to
take responsibility here. Our dear Aussie ADORES children and is gentle as a
fluffy stuffed toy with them. Never has nipping of humans ever been
tolerated at any time in her raising. She is 9 now and although impatient
with my 14 month old giant puppy she is still totally enamoured with kids.
Yes, she chased them up and down the hills as they tobogganed. Yes, she
tried to round them up when they played ball. Never did she ever try and nip
them....EVER! There would have been responsible consequences for such
actions if she did. The nipping issue was dealt with by adults when she was
young and very pliable. She wasn't allowed to "play" with kids until she was
deemed trustworthy enough. This is what responsible ownership of any pet is
as you know.
That being said I don't reccommend Aussies for the faint of heart or the
weak willed. They are always challenging their families. It's part of their
charm for most of thier owners...and can pose exasperation for others.
Aussies need to think they have jobs to do ....all the time! If you don't
have time to teach them..and provide them jobs...I can't think of anything
more challenging than living with a bored Aussie..LOL!
The most difficult breed we ever had to raise were two Jack Russells who I
adore for their character but they were the most tenacious beasties I have
ever dealt with. They put my bouv's determination to shame!!
So here is my rule of thumb...no more dogs that are smarter than me...and
WOW...I didn't realize how many breeds and mixes of breeds that ruled out
until I started looking for a new companion. LOL..now that's an
admission..LOL!
Anyway..I have been reading the thread and thanks for you positive and
insightful information. I have been refraining from stepping in as you and
Joan are doing a wonderful job of presenting thoughtful and positive
alternatives to mostly uneducated reactions.
This is an important topic not only for pet owners but for the protection of
the general public. Having appropriate legislation in place could prevent
neglect and abuse of animals and could provide a safer environment for
responsible pet owners and their communities to live together.
The problem is that the general public aren't usually interested in dogs
enough to delve deeply into the root of the issues. Usually they just want
the problem fixed. BSL would seem the obvious answer to most non-dog
people. I just ask that people, before they make judgement, actually delve
into the issue and understand the facts.
Joan and yourself have done a wonderful job of presenting them...and
interpreting them properly.
Thanks for your time...hey...and back off our Aussie! LOL! Cripes..you'll
have them banning them next..LOL!
HeatherM...owner of a raucous goofy loveable Leo puppy who is slowly
learning her manners..thankfully!
firecat
> And I'd like to thank you Firecat for coming into the conversation - I
> hope Fred is okay!! He must be getting up there now in age! I hope you
> can make it to the vigil - I'm going to be bringing Charlie with me -
> Leonard has gone up to Toronto to live with her father so she won't be
> there. Do you ever see April anymore? I always really appreciate your
> posts - they're always VERY well articulated and RIGHT! haha! Going
> to your idea of your family's toy poodle - I've got a little bichon mix
> who will NOT be at the vigil because of her dog aggression problem.
> Charlie - who is 110 pounds is a perfect ambassador for dog-dom and can
> go anywhere - Buttercup on the other hand has been banned for many
> places because of her incorrigible behaviour.
Fred's doing very well, and you may just see her at the vigil.. i'd like
to see Charlie again, it's been a long time.. i don't see April
anymore, but i'll tell you all about that either at the vigil, or
through private email.. that's one Newfoundland dog who ended up being
given a raw deal, but thankfully, she's out of it now..
as for my posts, i try to be very careful about what i write regarding
the dogs.. a lot of people don't know canine behaviour very well, so i
try to stick with facts and explain in a non-ofensive manner if i can..
when it comes to dog laws, education is the only way to get what is best
for both the dogs, and the humans.. we must always look to educating
people so they understand dog behaviour.. canine thought process is
fascinating..but so very very different from human....
firecat
*chuckles*
Sorry Heather, you know I'm not condemning Aussies.. they are awesome
dogs..just not for the faint of heart, as you said.. I'm am guilty,
however, of exaggerating a breed trait in order to make a point, and I
shouldn't.
Aussies are definitely wonderful dogs, and as Heather states, they can
be beautiful, well behaved pets. The major point that Heather has
actually helped me to make by taking me to task is that she had to
bloody well WORK to make certain that this dog wouldn't use its
instinctual response when dealing with humans. It's the same thing with
pits and all other dogs. Responsible dog owners put the effort in to
make sure that their dogs are well-behaved ambasadors for the breed, and
for dogs in general. Thnk you for that Heather, and I promise not to
make generalized statements anymore, not even to get a point across.
hug your Leo for me! she must be getting big!
firecat
> <dogk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124660266....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Donna said: "You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs
>>are ...... pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them
>>to stay in the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I
>>would NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive.
>
>
> Dogs aren't bred to be aggressive...they're trained that way....there's a
> difference....and who trains them....Humans! So therefore any human who
> trains an animal to be agressive and that animal hurts or kills someone, the
> owner should be held accountable.
>
>
actually, you're not entirely correct.. some dog breeds are naturally
agressive, they were bred to be that way when the breed was fisrt
created.. pits are one of those breeds..as are some types of mastiffs,
and 2-3 of the japanese breeds.. it is up to responsible dog owners to
make the effort to control those traits of their chosen companion so
that the dog does no harm to people or other animals.. an aggressive
breed can be trained out of instinctual behaviour..
on the flip side, any dog can be made agressive with training.. humans
are wonderful at taking something perfectly normal and non-threatening
and making it into a dangerous weapon..and yes, a dog who has been
tormented and trained to be indiscriminately agressive IS a weapon.. a
very dangerous one, because it is also completely unpredictable..
anyway, the main point here is that Breed Specific Legislation is not
going to solve the current problem in Ontario, or anywhere else.. what
WILL solve the problem is education for dog owners so they will be
responsible and make their companion a pleasure to be around instead of
an instrument of irrational fear..and, in my opinion, a form of
temperament testing for the prospective owner of a dog, to do the best
that we can do as a community to be sure a dog will go into a home that
will be safe, caring and healthy.. for both the dog, and the community
at large..
spacema...@gmail.com
"I LOVE this statement. Let me tell you why I got into the fight
against breed specific legislation - because I own 2 pocket knives and
a rottie mix - and I got the rottie mix AFTER I started fighting
against BSL and I intially was only going to foster the rottie mix, not
ALL dogs - different breeds of dog are as different as different races
and YOU are. To say anything else is simply untrue. And I believe
that God is the one who decided who should be on this earth and he's
the one who decides who leaves this earth - not the legislators and
elected officals. And because all dogs are the same breed specific
legislation is being disprespectful to MY dog because they are saying
that a type of dog isn't worthy of being on this earth - a type of dog
that really IS just like my dog - so they're saying that DOGS aren't
worthy of being on this earth and that's just not right. Dogs are my
chosen life time companion - so I'm going to fight to keep them because
they may decide that the look of the dog that I own is next. And I
don't believe that the analogy of dogs as pocket knives and guns is
correct - I believe that dogs are like delicate flowers - they wilt
very quickly when they don't have any sunshine or love - but when given
lots of love, gentle care, love, fresh air and good food - they'll
blossom and be the most beautiful creatures you can ever imagine."
Well, I think you have pointed out to all of use just who you are and
what you represent. I really don't have to say anything in rebutal as
you have pretty much summed yourself up nicely for everyone... but what
the heck:
I did not say that pitbulls do not have the right to live on the earth!
Where did you get that from? I am saying that they do NOT belong in
SOCIETY. They are NOT able to be domesticated. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I am
curious why you don't run down to the local zoo and grab a newborn
leopard or lion cub to raise as you see fit. Go on, ignore the SINCERE
wishes and rights of society. You make me laugh. Are you sure you are
not related to Sigfried and Roy? Because man oh man, you need a reality
check. Don't kill off all the breeds that can't be domesticated - put
them in zoos! BECAUSE THATS WHERE THEY BELONG. Intentional and
"accidental" (instinctual attacks) will be eliminated this way. Behind
bars. I don't care if you have chosen your potential killer dog as a
lifelong pet - you live in a SOCIETY with all the benefits derived from
such. Right now you are a nuisance and soon a criminal. If you want to
live "forever in bliss" with your childkiller, may I respectfully say -
GET THE HECK OUT OF DODGE, AND MOVE TO A NICE, SECLUDED AREA WHERE YOU
CAN BE ONE WITH YOUR PITBULL. That is, until he decides to snap your
neck when you aren't looking. I can see the headlines now: "The DINGO
ate her. But she had a smile on her face."
Please leave. The park is along the right track, but I mean move WAY
out. Like the Yukon or something. You don't like children, yet you live
in society. You prefer dogs. Wild dogs. What part am I missing? Here's
an idea - go see that new movie about bears - the guy who lived with
them for awhile thinking that they were his friends. There is a
surprise ending for you. HINT: He won't be kissing bears anytime soon.
And lastly a tip for you, don't bring religion into your posts; it
makes you look lazy.
santos
are you a troll or partially retarded? its hard to determine as of yet, but
if there is any type of breed ban it should include whatever category you
fall into.
santos
jimd...@gmail.com
firecat
*snickers*
Rich Johnson
news:7bdOe.233822$on1.18901@clgrps13:
Some snippage
>
> actually, you're not entirely correct.. some dog breeds are naturally
> agressive, they were bred to be that way when the breed was fisrt
> created.. pits are one of those breeds..as are some types of mastiffs,
> and 2-3 of the japanese breeds.. it is up to responsible dog owners to
> make the effort to control those traits of their chosen companion so
> that the dog does no harm to people or other animals.. an aggressive
> breed can be trained out of instinctual behaviour..
>
I'm not sure if agressivness and instinctual behaviour can be trained out
of an animal, I was going to use what's his name, the magican who was
attacked by a tiger. I'd say those were well trained animals and they
still attacked.
I guess I'd come down on the side of banning or at least severly
restricting some breeds of dogs, similarly as we control firearms, look
at the restrictions on hand guns for example
--
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada
firecat
specific case by case informaton is the best way to go.. regardless of
what the animal is, if it displays agressiveness that animal
behaviourists feel is threatening, then the animal must be dealt with..
but to ban an animal based on what it is, rather than on it's behaviour,
isn't the way to go..
the dangerous dog laws that we have make sense..they just need to be
enforced better, and the SPCA, or Animal Control needs to have canine
behaviourists on staff for temperament testing..
the instincts and agresssivenes can't be trained out of a dog, and i
apologize for the wording.. the animal can be trained to know that the
behaviour is unacceptable, and if the trainer is consistant, and good at
their job, then the animal can be consistantly well behaved.. i still
would never leave an animal that has instinctual behaviours that may
cause aggressiveness alone with children, but i won't leave my dog alone
with children either.. and she's not at all aggressive.. i'm just
careful and responsible..
instinctual behaviour can be curbed, and modified..again, my dog is a
good example.. she's part Siberian Husky, and used to be untrustworthy
due to one of their traits..wandering.. a Sibe will wander just for the
sake of wandering.. through careful and consistant training, my girl
will now not leave the yard without escort..not for any reason.. and
she's been tested with stray cats, and other dogs.. she goes to the
property line, and stops..
thing is, there are pit bulls and rotties out there who are wonderful
dogs, friendly, affectionate, and as trustworthy around people as any
dog ever is..and those dogs will suffer by this type of legislation as
well as the aggressive, nasty vicious ones.. the general public would be
much better served by ridding itself of the dogs, of any breed, who are
dangerous, agressive, or vicious, rather than banning pit bulls and
leaving the nasty German Shepherds, Dobermans, Mastiffs, chihuahuas and
cockers around to cause mischief and mayhem..
what most people seem to have blinders on about is that banning pit
bulls isn't going to solve the problem, it's merely going to destroy a
dog breed.. the problem will still exist.. the people who allow the pits
et.al. to behave in a manner that is dangerous to the general public
will still be out there, and will still be able to get a dog..which will
then be turned into the same aggressive, dangerous dog as the pit bull
before him.. if we allow this type of legislation, where will is stop?
what breeds will escape the breed specific legislation if these people
keep turning a new breed into the latest media frenzy of dog attacks?
all this legislation does is play into the hands of PETA, who want pet
ownership of anykind abolished, and will wantonly kill dogs and cats to
suit their own agenda..that of getting rid of the companion animal
altogether.. is that what we want?
if it isn't what you want, be careful what you support..research the
facts behind the breeds of dogs targetted, educate yourself on natural
canine behaviour so you will be a responsible dog owner who will know
what to expect of your pet due to it's instinctual behaviours as well as
it's trained behaviours.. that's the way to solve the dog attack
problem, education and research.. and if there must be legislation, make
it specific to an individual dog that is causing a problem, or even
better, the owner of any individual dog that is causing a problem..
catch the issue at it's root, the owner..not when it has already
escalated into something horrifying..
firecat
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:51:37 GMT, firecat <fir...@someplace.com>
> enlightened us with:
>
>
>>Rich Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>firecat <fir...@someplace.com> wrote in
>>>news:7bdOe.233822$on1.18901@clgrps13:
>>>
>>>
>>>Some snippage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>actually, you're not entirely correct.. some dog breeds are naturally
>>>>agressive, they were bred to be that way when the breed was fisrt
>>>>created.. pits are one of those breeds..as are some types of mastiffs,
>>>>and 2-3 of the japanese breeds.. it is up to responsible dog owners to
>>>>make the effort to control those traits of their chosen companion so
>>>>that the dog does no harm to people or other animals.. an aggressive
>>>>breed can be trained out of instinctual behaviour..
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure if agressivness and instinctual behaviour can be trained out
>>>of an animal, I was going to use what's his name, the magican who was
>>>attacked by a tiger. I'd say those were well trained animals and they
>>>still attacked.
>>>
>>>I guess I'd come down on the side of banning or at least severly
>>>restricting some breeds of dogs, similarly as we control firearms, look
>>>at the restrictions on hand guns for example
>>>
>>
>>
>>specific case by case informaton is the best way to go.. regardless of
>>what the animal is, if it displays agressiveness that animal
>>behaviourists feel is threatening, then the animal must be dealt with..
>>but to ban an animal based on what it is, rather than on it's behaviour,
>>isn't the way to go..
>
>
> available to the general public?
no, the dogs should be available to those who have the temperament and
mindset to train them to be trustworthy and well behaved..
>
>
>>the dangerous dog laws that we have make sense..they just need to be
>>enforced better, and the SPCA, or Animal Control needs to have canine
>>behaviourists on staff for temperament testing.
>
>
> Like Pit Bulls vary by dog! LOL!.
yes, actually they do.. just like dogs of any breed, they are all
individuals with their own individual personalities.. and if you think
that's not the case with dogs, then you haven't the foggiest clue what
you're talking about..
>
> Dogs are bred for their attributes,,, and the attributes of Pit Bulls
> are fighting skills. Just like Labs are bred fro their retrieving
> skills etc.......
>
>
>>the instincts and agresssivenes can't be trained out of a dog, and i
>>apologize for the wording.. the animal can be trained to know that the
>>behaviour is unacceptable, and if the trainer is consistant, and good at
>>their job, then the animal can be consistantly well behaved.. i still
>>would never leave an animal that has instinctual behaviours that may
>>cause aggressiveness alone with children, but i won't leave my dog alone
>>with children either.. and she's not at all aggressive.. i'm just
>>careful and responsible..
>
>
> Well, I had a dog that I wouldn't hesitate to leave with children
> because that dog wasn't aggressive ...... by nature or training.
>
> That's the reason why breeds are different!
then you were taking an awful chance with the children.. any dog can
bite, and will bite if it feels threatened.. they are dogs, they all
have instincts, and a dogs instincts are to fight or flee.. it has
nothing to do with the breed, it has to do with the temperament of the
dog, the training and care that has been put into the dog..but you've
already shown twice that you have no understanding of canine behaviour..
>
>
>>instinctual behaviour can be curbed, and modified..again, my dog is a
>>good example.. she's part Siberian Husky, and used to be untrustworthy
>>due to one of their traits..wandering.. a Sibe will wander just for the
>>sake of wandering.. through careful and consistant training, my girl
>>will now not leave the yard without escort..not for any reason.. and
>>she's been tested with stray cats, and other dogs.. she goes to the
>>property line, and stops..
>
>
> And probably isn't an instinctive killer either,,,,right?
she's a German Shepherd/Siberian Husky mix.. you figure it out..
>
>
>>thing is, there are pit bulls and rotties out there who are wonderful
>>dogs, friendly, affectionate, and as trustworthy around people as any
>>dog ever is..and those dogs will suffer by this type of legislation as
>>well as the aggressive, nasty vicious ones.. the general public would be
>>much better served by ridding itself of the dogs, of any breed, who are
>>dangerous, agressive, or vicious, rather than banning pit bulls and
>>leaving the nasty German Shepherds, Dobermans, Mastiffs, chihuahuas and
>>cockers around to cause mischief and mayhem..
>>
>>what most people seem to have blinders on about is that banning pit
>>bulls isn't going to solve the problem, it's merely going to destroy a
>>dog breed.. the problem will still exist.. the people who allow the pits
>>et.al. to behave in a manner that is dangerous to the general public
>>will still be out there, and will still be able to get a dog..which will
>>then be turned into the same aggressive, dangerous dog as the pit bull
>>before him.. if we allow this type of legislation, where will is stop?
>>what breeds will escape the breed specific legislation if these people
>>keep turning a new breed into the latest media frenzy of dog attacks?
>
>
> I have no problem destroying the entire Pit Bull breed and I don't
> have ant "blinders" on. There is no logical reason for the breed other
> than fighting. That's what they are bred for and that's what
> eventually they revert to. Saying thy aren't ids akin to saying a
> Rolls Royce can be a great sports car ,,, if you drive it hard! LOL
not all pits revert to fighting, and they were NEVER bred to be human
agressive, so the idea of them reverting to harming people is
ludicrous.. the pits that are aggressive toward people were made that
why by people.. once again, you show that you have no clue when it comes
to the facts behind the original breeding of these dogs..
>
>
>>all this legislation does is play into the hands of PETA, who want pet
>>ownership of anykind abolished, and will wantonly kill dogs and cats to
>>suit their own agenda..that of getting rid of the companion animal
>>altogether.. is that what we want?
>
>
> That's a crazy statement!
how is it crazy? read the statements by Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of
PETA.. the statements i made above merely echo what she and her group
are quite open about.. research the facts before telling me that i'm
making crazy statements
>
>
>>if it isn't what you want, be careful what you support..research the
>>facts behind the breeds of dogs targetted, educate yourself on natural
>>canine behaviour so you will be a responsible dog owner who will know
>>what to expect of your pet due to it's instinctual behaviours as well as
>>it's trained behaviours.. that's the way to solve the dog attack
>>problem, education and research.. and if there must be legislation, make
>>it specific to an individual dog that is causing a problem, or even
>>better, the owner of any individual dog that is causing a problem..
>>catch the issue at it's root, the owner..not when it has already
>>escalated into something horrifying..
>
>
> Why pray tell are the Pit Bulls the most problematic? Because they all
> have nut cases for owners? Don't think so. Its the dogs in the hands
> of owners that can't control them...
>
> Is that an owner or a breed problem,,,and before you answer that,
> think about the probability of the same owner having a ,,,hmm
> Poodle,,, and the possibility of that Poodle being a problem.....
yes, a poodle can certainly be a problem.. my grandparents had one that
was completely out of control, and bit everyone it could get behind..
Joan stated already that her Bichon Frise is also aggressive..
Pit Bulls are not problematic, the media hype surrounding them is..
there are attacks, yes.. just as there were huge numbers of attacks by
vicious German Shpeherds in the 1970's, and Dobermans in the 1980's.. in
the 90's it was the Rottweiler.. now it's the Pit Bull.. why? because
they are a popular breed, being bred indiscriminately by puppy millers
and backyard breeders who couldn't care less what they are putting
together to produce a litter as long as they make money..
do the research NOMAN..even you can find the information, the facts, if
you want to look for it.. i've done the research.. i've read the
articles on the internet, the news stories, etc. in almost every case
of a dog killing a child, it was because the adults were NOT supervising
dangerous situations.. intact dogs near bitches in heat are NOT safe for
young children who may not understand that the dog has other things on
his mind, period..
this is the last post i will respond to of yours, as i refuse to engage
in a battle with you over this when you cannot be bothered to even look
for the facts.. if you choose to do the research that i've spent the
past 10 years doing, then i may discuss this with you..
santos
<jimd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124741420.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> santos - nice, eloquent reply. Now think critically and shutup.
>
and the point of your post was... ? no need to get in on this discussion,
the only person with any sense seems to be firecat, the other posters
repeatedly make factual errors and obviously have no idea about the breed.
Great incites such as 'bred as an attack dog' 'until he decides to snap your
neck when you aren't looking' 'babykiller' 'wild dogs'. The pit bull breed
was never trained to attack humans, they have no tendancy to 'turn' any more
than any other dog, they arent any more 'wild' then any other breed. As for
breed bans, there are stacks of information showing how they dont work, how
what ends up happening is you have ppl abandoning animals in droves and then
getting another breed that isnt on the list. You have 2 sets of facts from
which to choose, facts that are readily available on the internet or even
your local library or veternarian or any number of sources, or from 'common
knowledge' which goes in hand with media hype. Apparently pit bulls are the
only breed of dog that attacks anyone going by newspaper coverage.... funny
how that doesnt match up with hospital statistics, but if a kid gets bit by
a lab and has to have a few stitches no one is interested. Bah, why bother
explaining any of this to people who dont know any better, think I'll go lay
back down with the 'vicious animal' thats snoring on the bed instead.
santos
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
Exactly!!!!
Tay
--
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
255 Melrose Crescent Eastern Passage NS Canada B3G 1P7
Ph: (902)479-2254 Cell: (902)830-2254 Fax: (902)431-0374
Email: t...@eastlink.ca
guy...@gmail.com
like: "in almost every case of a dog killing a child, it was because
the adults were NOT supervising
being killed? Must everything with you be either dog or adult? Think
about the kids for just one second - CAN YOU DO THAT?) and "The pit
bull breed was never trained to attack humans" (ridiculous - agressive
behavior to kill any creature is not to be tolerated - personalities of
dogs - LOL; dogs are NOT SENTIENT BEINGS! Just where are you going with
the dog personality claim? Haha - I guess they better start voting for
the right politicians then eh? LMAO!) claim to be based on an educated
point of view and non-biased. If anyone else reading these posts
actually think that the authors are critical thinkers and are true
experts in the field then I hope they do their own research to prove
otherwise. They are getting pets' instincts mixed up with human ego and
personality. Pet's do NOT have a superego either! (human psychology
that explains how people interact with one another, or being aware of
others feelings) Do your own research readers. Thats what the Internet
was designed for originally - research. It is important to distinguish
someone who is biased (like a pitbull owner - who will naturally fight
for his dog; or a father - who will naturally fight for his children).
Now approach it from neutrality as a jury would - what is more
important IN SOCIETY, pets or children? If the two cannot be mixed with
certainty, should licensing be an issue for one or both of these
groups? HAHAHAA. I am trying to be civil here and the thought process
is absolutely ridiculous. Even though one of the posters on this thread
has publicly said that she prefers dogs over children (*rolls eyes*).
CHILDREN ARE HUMAN! Give me a break.
It is too bad that you feel persecuted for your dog's sake. But it is
society that is doing it and not a biased entity. It is society as a
whole that is finally coming to grips with what is right for our
country, and society gains it's opinion gradually over time from MANY
sources of information, voices them through democratically elected
representatives, and relies on not just one media source, or two or
three, but decades worth of input. You must realize that what is
happening is something that did not happen overnight, but is coming to
fruition over decades of sad events and research. Sure, you have your
pockets of resistance like this cute little meeting of yours, but
unfortunately for you, and fortunately for society - you will be pushed
back over time, like the public smokers and the people of racial and
sexual intolerence. Your time is over. Buy a nice aquarium. Focus on
human interaction, instead of wallowing in your own sense of what is
just. If you don't want to, that's fine - but don't force your will on
a society who doesn't want it. MOVE. Out in the city somewhere. I don't
mean to be rude, but hey, I ask smokers to butt out when it bothers me
in public places; and I am backed BY THE LAW. Get used to it.
Al Smith
> the only person with any sense seems to be firecat, the other posters
> repeatedly make factual errors and obviously have no idea about the breed.
> Great incites such as 'bred as an attack dog' 'until he decides to snap your
> neck when you aren't looking' 'babykiller' 'wild dogs'. The pit bull breed
> was never trained to attack humans, they have no tendancy to 'turn' any more
> than any other dog, they arent any more 'wild' then any other breed. As for
> breed bans, there are stacks of information showing how they dont work, how
> what ends up happening is you have ppl abandoning animals in droves and then
> getting another breed that isnt on the list. You have 2 sets of facts from
> which to choose, facts that are readily available on the internet or even
> your local library or veternarian or any number of sources, or from 'common
> knowledge' which goes in hand with media hype. Apparently pit bulls are the
> only breed of dog that attacks anyone going by newspaper coverage.... funny
> how that doesnt match up with hospital statistics, but if a kid gets bit by
> a lab and has to have a few stitches no one is interested. Bah, why bother
> explaining any of this to people who dont know any better, think I'll go lay
> back down with the 'vicious animal' thats snoring on the bed instead.
>
> santos
The problem isn't that pit bulls attack humans more often than
other dogs (although this may well be the case) -- it is that they
do more damage when they attack.
Who cares how often beagles or Scotties nip? They are yappy, timid
little dogs that can't do any real harm to an adult under average
circumstances. Pit bulls, on the other hand, bite harder and are
less willing to back off from their attack. They go for the kill.
I don't see any reason to try to protect them. They aren't a
natural species, they are a dog breed. Who cares if they cease to
exist? According to Mother Nature they never should have existed
in the first place. I'm in favor of them being banned from cities
and towns.
dogk...@gmail.com
just who you are and what you represent. I really don't have to say
for everyone... but what the heck:
Whitman I thought.... Are you Donna Whitman? If you are, then I
apologize, but that's who I was answering a question for in your
quote that you are replying to in the above paragraph - so I'm sure
why you're so upset with me - but I would LOVE to say a little bit
about your reply - you are obviously a HUGE dog-hater, and are either
extremely afraid of dogs or never owned one in your life, which I'm
truly sorry for. But either way - your blather isn't going to gain
any insights either way into the conversation so I'm not going to
acknowledge it anymore. A troll is a troll and unfortunately you've
shown yourself as one far too early in the game. Sorry. All I can do
is laugh.
Guyt said: "Well I have had enough of the lovefest for child killing
dogs. Quotes like: "in almost every case of a dog killing a child, it
was because the adults were NOT supervising dangerous situations"
(What about the child? What say do they have in being killed? Must
everything with you be either dog or adult? Think about the kids for
just one second - CAN YOU DO THAT?) "
The question I ask when children are mauled to death by dogs that have
been unsupervised is 2 fold - where were the dog's owners - but I
also ask - where were the children's parents? Why is that question
never asked? Why is always completely and totally the dog owners
fault? I always think that there are 2 adult humans to blame - the
dog's owner and the CHILD'S PARENT - for letting that child go
out unsupervised. When a child is killed by a dog there is no question
that it is a huge tragedy in many different ways - with the biggest
one being the death of the child - but that child's parent is
grossly negligent and MUST be called to task and NEVER IS. And WHY
NOT?
"Guyt also said: You must realize that what is happening is
something that did not happen overnight, but is coming to
fruition over decades of sad events and research. Sure, you have your
pockets of resistance like this cute little meeting of yours, but
unfortunately for you, and fortunately for society - you will be pushed
back over time, like the public smokers and the people of racial and
sexual intolerence. Your time is over. Buy a nice aquarium. Focus on
human interaction, instead of wallowing in your own sense of what is
just. If you don't want to, that's fine - but don't force your will on
a society who doesn't want it. MOVE. Out in the city somewhere. I don't
mean to be rude, but hey, I ask smokers to butt out when it bothers me
in public places; and I am backed BY THE LAW. Get used to it."
I'm sorry to say Mr Guyt that I think you've got it backwards -
at least in North America - statistics say that more and more people
are having less and less children and are choosing to have dogs as
their companions - so this is only going to get worse for you
dog-haters - not better. So you better fasten your seat belt - and
maybe you might want to think about moving - because there are
1000's of people in the Halifax Regional Municipality who own dogs
and there is a VIBRANT, ACTIVE, POLITICAL, articulate, well-educated,
well connected - and well-networked community of dog owners in this
city who have decided that we don't want to live by rules developed
by people like YOU anymore. We want to develop rules and laws that are
fair and equitable to EVERYONE - and that includes people who ride
bicycles, people who own dogs, people who walk on sidewalks, and people
who ride in wheel chairs. So I'm sorry to say Mr GuyT - you might
want to buy yourself a dehydrator and start preparing your bug-out kit
now.
But to sum up - the vigil this Sunday isn't really about pit bulls
- it's about ALL dogs - it's about YOUR dog. It's about
respect for dogs. Just this thread has shown how many people don't
respect dogs - how many "dog-haters" are out there. Sunday is an
opportunity to come and show that you love YOUR dog enough that you
don't want to see THOUSANDS OF DOGS DIE NEEDLESSLY. And that you are
going to be brave enough in the coming months to bear witness to what
is going to happen in Ontario - to the genocide that's going to
happen (sorry Wonkey for using another proprietary word). Please
don't let all these posts let the original post fade away the
original intent of the message - Sunday at 8pm there's going to be
a vigil at Point Pleasant Park at the Gazebo which is up the hill from
the Shakespeare by the Sea Offices. You can download a poster to find
out more info at
http://users.eastlink.ca/~joansinden/halifax_dog_vigil.pdf
It's also now become a world-wide event - you can go to
http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/08/my_dog_votes_so.html
- to find out more about that.
Joan
--
http://dogkisser.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/charlieloveshalifax/index.html
http://www.cafepress.com/dogkisser
Wonkey
where were the children's parents? Why is that question
never asked? Why is always completely and totally the dog owners
fault? I always think that there are 2 adult humans to blame - the
dog's owner and the CHILD'S PARENT - for letting that child go
out unsupervised. When a child is killed by a dog there is no question
that it is a huge tragedy in many different ways - with the biggest
one being the death of the child - but that child's parent is
grossly negligent and MUST be called to task and NEVER IS. And WHY
NOT?
When your out walking your dog don't you ever even see a child? Were
you born into this world an adult? Have you ever seen a TV show with
children in it?
Did your parents walk one foot behind you until you were able to
successfully fight off a hundred pound dog? If a gun owner left a gun
on the street and a kid found it, would you blame a kid for blowing his
head off and ask "where were the kids parents?" Lets keep asking
questions, here's another - would you let your seven year old daughter
out to play in the yard by herself? If you did do you think she would
win a fight with your pitbull?
I'm serious, could you answer these questions for me. How big do kids
have to be to survive an attack by your dog? Why couldn't that lady in
California survive the attack by those two dogs? Wasn't she old
enough, I wonder where her parents were.
I can just imagine you now, your pitbull just killed your neighbors'
daughter, her body is lying on the street, up walks Joan and asks "Why
couldn't you watch your kids?"
Does this sound crazy to anyone but me?
bark
> I don't see any reason to try to protect them. They aren't a natural
> species, they are a dog breed. Who cares if they cease to exist?
> According to Mother Nature they never should have existed in the first
> place. I'm in favor of them being banned from cities and towns.
Lots of people who care about dogs care if they cease to exist. Banning
one breed of dog doesn't only affect that breed, it affects all breeds
because it opens the door. the criminals who use dogs as weapons will
"build a better mousetrap", the people who generally abuse their dogs,
will abuse other breeds. The problem with banning specific breeds, is
that it is punishing the wrong end of the leash. Humans are responsible
for breeding temperamentally unsound dogs of any breed, they are
responsible for creating aggressive dogs who attack. It's like a drunk
driver. If a drunk driver kills a person on the crosswalk who gets
arrested? the car? Because arresting a car would make sense, wouldn't
it? the driver wouldn't have killed someone if they were not behind the
wheel of the car. cars are inherently dangerous after all. They kill and
severely injure a lot of people every year... government needs to make
dog owners responsible for the dogs they own, and the dogs they breed.
Owners need to be charged for dog attacks and be held responsible.
In my opinion, the reason to protect pit bulls, is to stop governments
from making laws that prohibit things. Anything. Prohibiting alcohol did
nothing to make people stop drinking. Why waste tax dollars banning
things? that affects everyone, why not just punish the people who are
irresponsible.
firecat
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:27:54 GMT, firecat <fir...@someplace.com>
> enlightened us with:
>
> So they should be registered like hand guns? Lets be honest, this
> breed is a problem and just by the answer you gave above I would
> assume that you understand their potential danger to society.
of course i realize their POTENTIAL danger.. that's why these dogs
shouldn't be available to just anyone.. that doesn't mean that a breed
bad of pits is going to stop dog attacks in Ontario..it only means that
the people who allow pits to attack will choose another breed and create
an equally dangerous animal to attack.. the point i'm trying to make is
that the breed doesn't make the dog a vicious killer..it gives it a
higher propensity toward aggressiveness if it is not in the handling of
someone who knows what they are doing, and is capable of being the boss
in the relationship without abusing the dog in order to bring out more
aggressive traits.. i've never once said those traits were not there..
i've said they can be modified and controlled in the proper hands
>
>
>>>
>>>>the dangerous dog laws that we have make sense..they just need to be
>>>>enforced better, and the SPCA, or Animal Control needs to have canine
>>>>behaviourists on staff for temperament testing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like Pit Bulls vary by dog! LOL!.
>>
>>yes, actually they do.. just like dogs of any breed, they are all
>>individuals with their own individual personalities.. and if you think
>>that's not the case with dogs, then you haven't the foggiest clue what
>>you're talking about..
>
>
> But I do understand that breeds are bred for certain characteristics
> of behavior etc. Some are bred for intelligence, some for hunting,
> some for retrieving, some for lots of different reasons,,,,, but the
> Pit bull has been bred for its fighting tenacity and killing
> instincts. I don't think that can be denied and I am of the opinion
> that,,,, that kind of bred can never be trusted no matter how well
> trained to be a loving and gentle pet.
you're entitled to your opinion.. i won't argue opinions, there's no
point.. and yes, pits were bred for fighting tenacity against other
dogs..not people.. once again, these dogs had to be trustworthy when in
the pits, because the handlers had to be able to break up a dog fight at
will.. if the dog was human aggressive, that could never happen..
i spoke with the people at my vet hospital today.. they've told me that
there are a large number of dog bites, mostly by dogs under 30 pounds..
one vet nurse also told me that she knows of 2 golden retrievers
(everyone's favourite family dog) who had to be put down, in their vet
hospital alone, for severely damaging children by biting.. all dogs are
capable of biting, all dogs will, for vaious reasons.. you just don't
hear the media hype about the labrador retrievers, the goldens, the
newfoundlands, the yorkies and chihuahuas.. i also realize that the
damage that can be inflicted by a pit is much worse than likely damage
by a yorkie..but the point is, why should those small dogs be permitted
to behave badly and live when people like yourself call for the mass
killing of another breed for the same reason?
>
>
>>>Dogs are bred for their attributes,,, and the attributes of Pit Bulls
>>>are fighting skills. Just like Labs are bred fro their retrieving
>>>skills etc.......
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>the instincts and agresssivenes can't be trained out of a dog, and i
>>>>apologize for the wording.. the animal can be trained to know that the
>>>>behaviour is unacceptable, and if the trainer is consistant, and good at
>>>>their job, then the animal can be consistantly well behaved.. i still
>>>>would never leave an animal that has instinctual behaviours that may
>>>>cause aggressiveness alone with children, but i won't leave my dog alone
>>>>with children either.. and she's not at all aggressive.. i'm just
>>>>careful and responsible..
>
>
> But what you are saying is that its OK for someone to be given an AK47
> automatic rifle and as long as they are trained in its use thy will
> never present any danger to humanity. I have a big problem with these
> also as they have but a single use and it is to kill a lot in a hurry.
>
> One can call it whatever kind of gun they wish but it still boils don
> to the simple fact that an AK47 was developed to kill,,,,, people.
and pit bulls were not bred to kill people.. you're comparing apples and
oranges again.. :) i understand your point, bad analogy.. training a
dog is completely different from training a person to use an automatic
rifle.. people can and will be deliberately malicious.. and you are
training them to use a tool.. if you train a dog, you are training the
tool..
>
>
>>>
>>>Well, I had a dog that I wouldn't hesitate to leave with children
>>>because that dog wasn't aggressive ...... by nature or training.
>>>
>>>That's the reason why breeds are different!
>
>
> That's my point. Pit bulls have been bred to kill......
>
>
>>then you were taking an awful chance with the children.. any dog can
>>bite, and will bite if it feels threatened.. they are dogs, they all
>>have instincts, and a dogs instincts are to fight or flee.. it has
>>nothing to do with the breed, it has to do with the temperament of the
>>dog, the training and care that has been put into the dog..but you've
>>already shown twice that you have no understanding of canine behaviour..
>
>
> Yes ,, I agree that all dogs are potential biters. Seems the smaller
> they are the more they tend to bite. But biting isn't the issue here.
> Pit bulls go way past biting.
so take the pit bulls away from the people who allow them to behave
badly.. that doesn't have to mean banning the breed, it merely needs to
have better practices on who can own a dog and who can't.. and if a
specific pit bull attacks a human with no provocation, then it should be
put down.. but the ones who have done no wrong do not deserve to be
punished.. unless, and until, they do something to deserve it.. and them
just being a pit bull does not guarantee that they will ever bite..
>
>>>
>>>>instinctual behaviour can be curbed, and modified..again, my dog is a
>>>>good example.. she's part Siberian Husky, and used to be untrustworthy
>>>>due to one of their traits..wandering.. a Sibe will wander just for the
>>>>sake of wandering.. through careful and consistant training, my girl
>>>>will now not leave the yard without escort..not for any reason.. and
>>>>she's been tested with stray cats, and other dogs.. she goes to the
>>>>property line, and stops..
>>>
>>>
>>>And probably isn't an instinctive killer either,,,,right?
>>
>>she's a German Shepherd/Siberian Husky mix.. you figure it out..
>
>
> OK,,, neither of those dog breeds have been bred to fight/kill.
have you ever met a GSD who didn't chase cats, or at least want to? i
haven't.. and most of them would kill a cat if they caught it.. Sibes
are known wanderers, and they were bred to survive in the north.. with
or without human intervention.. they can, and will, kill if they feel
the urge, or need..
>
>
>>>
>>>>thing is, there are pit bulls and rotties out there who are wonderful
>>>>dogs, friendly, affectionate, and as trustworthy around people as any
>>>>dog ever is..and those dogs will suffer by this type of legislation as
>>>>well as the aggressive, nasty vicious ones.. the general public would be
>>>>much better served by ridding itself of the dogs, of any breed, who are
>>>>dangerous, agressive, or vicious, rather than banning pit bulls and
>>>>leaving the nasty German Shepherds, Dobermans, Mastiffs, chihuahuas and
>>>>cockers around to cause mischief and mayhem..
>
>
> I'm not arguing that there are probably some nice dogs lumped into
> that lot,,,, but the problem arises when those that aren't nice attack
> and seriously injure or kill someone. There isn't any way to sort out
> the bad in the bred up front so I am quite happy to see the breed
> banned if doing so will prevent just one child from being mauled to
> death.
>
> Lets be realistic,,, nobody absolutely has to own a Pit bull.....
if you agree that the problem arises when those that aren't nice attack,
then why not stop at euthanizing THOSE dogs, and leave the ones that are
nice alone, unless they show aggressiveness that could potentially lead
to an attack? why ban the breed for the actions of the smaller
percentage of dogs? personally, i'm all for putting down an aggressive
dog, of any breed.. i'm not for condemning all dogs of a specific breed
because some of them have not been trained properly, or worse, have been
trained to attack humans for any reason..
>
>
>
>>>>what most people seem to have blinders on about is that banning pit
>>>>bulls isn't going to solve the problem, it's merely going to destroy a
>>>>dog breed.. the problem will still exist.. the people who allow the pits
>>>>et.al. to behave in a manner that is dangerous to the general public
>>>>will still be out there, and will still be able to get a dog..which will
>>>>then be turned into the same aggressive, dangerous dog as the pit bull
>>>>before him.. if we allow this type of legislation, where will is stop?
>>>>what breeds will escape the breed specific legislation if these people
>>>>keep turning a new breed into the latest media frenzy of dog attacks?
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no problem destroying the entire Pit Bull breed and I don't
>>>have ant "blinders" on. There is no logical reason for the breed other
>>>than fighting. That's what they are bred for and that's what
>>>eventually they revert to. Saying thy aren't ids akin to saying a
>>>Rolls Royce can be a great sports car ,,, if you drive it hard! LOL
>>
>>not all pits revert to fighting, and they were NEVER bred to be human
>>agressive, so the idea of them reverting to harming people is
>>ludicrous.. the pits that are aggressive toward people were made that
>>why by people.. once again, you show that you have no clue when it comes
>>to the facts behind the original breeding of these dogs..
>
>
> I have absolutely no faith in that statement. How do you explain all
> the problems with Pit bulls,,,, all owned by bad people? That's crazy.
> Look art that case in LA where the woman was killed in the apartment
> hallway when she was attacked for no reason but 2 Pit bulls.
the woman in the hallway was not attacked by pit bulls, she was attacked
by Presa Canarios.. they are a breed that makes pit bulls look like
choir boys.. if you do a google search for presa canarios, and read some
of the web pages, you'll see where they state that if a dog of that
breed shows tendencies toward friendliness, it is not a good specimen of
the breed.. and generally is put down because it is not aggressive enough..
most cases of pits attacking people are due to the people not knowing
what they were dealing with.. the lady with the child who was killed by
an intact dog housed with a bitch in heat.. that parent/dog owner was
stupid.. plain and simple.. those dogs should never have been left in
that house alone with the child.. that kid was just being a kid, and
died needlessly due to the mothers negligence.. if you look at the
attacks on a case by case basis, you will find that in about 95% of
them, it was either human error or human training.. a lot of these dogs
find their way into homes where the stash must be protected..those dogs
are trained to attack anything that isn't the owner.. or, tragic cases
like the child left in the house alone with the two dogs.. the dog was
being a dog, the kid being a kid.. those dogs should have had a run
outside, where they should have been locked in, not lock the child in
the basement and hope he wouldn't get out.. that's human stupidity..
>
>>>
>>>>all this legislation does is play into the hands of PETA, who want pet
>>>>ownership of anykind abolished, and will wantonly kill dogs and cats to
>>>>suit their own agenda..that of getting rid of the companion animal
>>>>altogether.. is that what we want?
>>>
>>>
>>>That's a crazy statement!
>>
>>how is it crazy? read the statements by Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of
>>PETA.. the statements i made above merely echo what she and her group
>>are quite open about.. research the facts before telling me that i'm
>>making crazy statements
>
>
> You are saying that PETA has stated that all pet ownership should be
> abolished?
>
> PETA have taken a stand against human interference in the breeding of
> animals.....
no, PETA has stated that pet ownership has no place on this earth.. i've
read it in their mission statement, and in their magazines.. as well,
you can do a google search on Ingrid Newkirk and find many quotes where
she has said this very thing.. PETA is not for ethical treatment of
animals, they are for humans not owning animals, period.. do the
research, i already have
>
>
>>>
>>>>if it isn't what you want, be careful what you support..research the
>>>>facts behind the breeds of dogs targetted, educate yourself on natural
>>>>canine behaviour so you will be a responsible dog owner who will know
>>>>what to expect of your pet due to it's instinctual behaviours as well as
>>>>it's trained behaviours.. that's the way to solve the dog attack
>>>>problem, education and research.. and if there must be legislation, make
>>>>it specific to an individual dog that is causing a problem, or even
>>>>better, the owner of any individual dog that is causing a problem..
>>>>catch the issue at it's root, the owner..not when it has already
>>>>escalated into something horrifying..
>>>
>>>
>>>Why pray tell are the Pit Bulls the most problematic? Because they all
>>>have nut cases for owners? Don't think so. Its the dogs in the hands
>>>of owners that can't control them...
>>>
>>>Is that an owner or a breed problem,,,and before you answer that,
>>>think about the probability of the same owner having a ,,,hmm
>>>Poodle,,, and the possibility of that Poodle being a problem.....
>>
>>yes, a poodle can certainly be a problem.. my grandparents had one that
>>was completely out of control, and bit everyone it could get behind..
>>Joan stated already that her Bichon Frise is also aggressive..
>
>
> How many people have either of these 2 breeds attack and or
> mauled/killed without provocation. I'll guess none.
check with your vet..i checked with mine.. the killing may not happen,
but does a person have to be killed before a dog is dealt with? why
should it have to go that far? any dog that shows aggressiveness toward
humans, regardless of breed, should be thoroughly temperament tested,
and euthanized if the problem is temperament, not medical..
>
>>Pit Bulls are not problematic, the media hype surrounding them is..
>>there are attacks, yes.. just as there were huge numbers of attacks by
>>vicious German Shpeherds in the 1970's, and Dobermans in the 1980's.. in
>>the 90's it was the Rottweiler.. now it's the Pit Bull.. why? because
>>they are a popular breed, being bred indiscriminately by puppy millers
>>and backyard breeders who couldn't care less what they are putting
>>together to produce a litter as long as they make money..
>>
>>do the research NOMAN..even you can find the information, the facts, if
>>you want to look for it.. i've done the research.. i've read the
>>articles on the internet, the news stories, etc. in almost every case
>>of a dog killing a child, it was because the adults were NOT supervising
>>dangerous situations.. intact dogs near bitches in heat are NOT safe for
>>young children who may not understand that the dog has other things on
>>his mind, period..
>
>
> There again is my point. Why should we as a society even have to guard
> our kids against someone else's aggressive dog? Get rid of the
> aggressive breeds.
>
> The erroneous pattern to your and many others argument is that if I
> don't protect my children from everyone else's dog,,, then it my
> problem. I take the other view,,, that if you wish to own an animal
> that is by breed design aggressive and a threat to society,, than the
> onus is yours.
>
> You see, I don't have any information as to where and when an
> aggressive animal will attack. So, how do I protect my kids from it?
you protect your children as best you can by teaching them how to
approach a dog properly, teach them how to act with dogs, then you do
the very best you can to keep a watch on dogs around you for any
aggressive dogs, not just pit bulls..
>
>
>>this is the last post i will respond to of yours, as i refuse to engage
>>in a battle with you over this when you cannot be bothered to even look
>>for the facts.. if you choose to do the research that i've spent the
>>past 10 years doing, then i may discuss this with you..
>
>
> I have given you my view as a parent.
>
> I have no use for anyone's perceived right to own a dangerous animal
> if it places any person in any position of harm.
i agree with that.. that's why i would like to see stricter rules for
people who own these dogs, not necessarily banning the breed
>
> You are presenting the "facts" of those that wish to own aggressive
> animals. That does not make your facts correct......
>
> The facts are....
>
> Pit Bulls have been bred to fight and kill
yes, bred to fight and kill other dogs, but specifically bred to handle
human intervention in those fights and not be human aggressive.. those
that are, have not been bred properly, or trained properly
>
> Pit Bulls have not been bred to be gentle companions
but their behaviour can be modified so they can be just that..in the
proper hands
>
> Pit Bulls have mauled and killed for no apparent reason
i haven't seen a single case of that.. every case of a dog mauling and
killing, when it is investigated, it has been found that there are
reasons.. but no dog should be permitted to maul or kill
>
> Pit Bulls are not socially acceptable by the majority of the
> population
the majority of the population has voted on this?
>
> People want priotection from these types of dogs
>
>
yes, and they should have it.. i completely agree that these dogs who
are vicious, and killing, should not be permitted to live..but that's
not the entire breed.. and if this breed is banned, it will be another
breed that takes its place and becomes the new vicious dog of choice..
Al Smith
To a certain extent, I agree with you. Any dog can be mistreated
and made more violent and agressive than it might otherwise have been.
However, pit bulls are inherently agressive. That's just a fact.
They were deliberately bred to be agressive and dominant dogs, so
that they would have the courage to combat large beasts, and other
dogs. That's where the "pit" in pit bull comes from. They were
bred for the fighting pits. That aspect of their nature cannot be
removed with kindness and loving care. It is always there, waiting
to come out.
santos
"Wonkey" <Jac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124842208.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Come on Joan, please say you were kidding?
>
> where were the children's parents? Why is that question
> never asked? Why is always completely and totally the dog owners
> fault? I always think that there are 2 adult humans to blame - the
> dog's owner and the CHILD'S PARENT - for letting that child go
> out unsupervised. When a child is killed by a dog there is no question
>
> that it is a huge tragedy in many different ways - with the biggest
> one being the death of the child - but that child's parent is
> grossly negligent and MUST be called to task and NEVER IS. And WHY
> NOT?
>
> When your out walking your dog don't you ever even see a child? Were
> you born into this world an adult? Have you ever seen a TV show with
> children in it?
> Did your parents walk one foot behind you until you were able to
> successfully fight off a hundred pound dog? If a gun owner left a gun
> on the street and a kid found it, would you blame a kid for blowing his
> head off and ask "where were the kids parents?" Lets keep asking
> questions, here's another - would you let your seven year old daughter
> out to play in the yard by herself? If you did do you think she would
> win a fight with your pitbull?
>
Could she win a fight with a german sheppard? a husky? a st bernard? what
you dont seem to comprehend is that banning one breed or even several doesnt
solve the problem, bad owners will still buy dogs just a different breed,
and in a few years your back to the same problem, you just dont have
pitbulls or rottweilers to blame for it, look at statistics for dog bites
anywhere that a breed ban is in effect and see how pit bull bites drop and
other breed bitings rise.
As for the question of liability, it is seldom the case that some person
is bumbling along and a dog comes out of the bushes and attacks them. This
does occur, and it is by and large the owners fault for either not securing
their property or willfully letting their dog run loose (and in many cases
these are the types of dogs that attack, that are left to roam and uncared
for and undiciplined) However, most dog bites happen when someone
approaches a dog and tries to pet it. In cases where people, even children,
walk onto someones property and ignore 2 or 3 'beware of dog' signs and walk
up to a chained dog and try to pet it and are mauled, I would split the
blame between the dog owner and the parent. Parents should teach their
children better, the child should actually know better (i remember growling
dogs from when i was a child and i certainly had no intention of going near
them) and the dog owner for leaving the dog unattended and btw, the dogs
that attacked and killed the woman in los angeles were Presa Canarios, not
pit bull terriers, they are much bigger dogs related to the mastiff. Not
that any of this means anything to you, since you offer little actually
information in your posts other than antedoctal tidbits you've gathered from
newpaper articles and other dubious sources.
santos
jimd...@gmail.com
crosswalk who gets
arrested? the car? Because arresting a car would make sense, wouldn't
it? the driver wouldn't have killed someone if they were not behind the
wheel of the car. cars are inherently dangerous after all. They kill
and
severely injure a lot of people every year... government needs to make
dog owners responsible for the dogs they own, and the dogs they breed.
Owners need to be charged for dog attacks and be held responsible. "
THINK MAN! First of all, cars are LICENSED. The drivers are LICENSED.
There are annual SAFETY CHECKS of the cars to ensure they are not a
danger on the road. There are street legal cars that the government has
deemed to be road worthy in SOCIETY, and there are illegal cars that
have been modified for street racing. Bad analogy. However I do agree
with your paragraph closing line that owners need to be charged for dog
attacks and held responsible - this goes without saying.
The illustrous Santos said:
"However, most dog bites happen when someone approaches a dog and tries
to pet it. In cases where people, even children, walk onto someones
property and ignore 2 or 3 'beware of dog' signs and walk up to a
chained dog and try to pet it and are mauled, I would split the blame
between the dog owner and the parent. Parents should teach their
children better, the child should actually know better (i remember
growling dogs from when i was a child and i certainly had no intention
of going near them) and the dog owner for leaving the dog unattended"
Wow, what a view of the world you have. STATE your source for your
"most dog bites..." statement. You are the one asking for references on
a public board. Where is your bibliography? lol.
Haha - and the statement that dogs are replacing children as an
increasing statistic is ludicrous. I have never heard such ridiculous
and fanciful arguments in my life. Get a grip on what is ultimately
important and stop with your self-serving agendas.
>From my empirical experience, most dogs are encountered in public parks
where humans are trying to enjoy a day in the sun with our families -
and trying not to step in dog feces; not when hopping fences into
strange yards. Children are innocent and have different levels of
awareness of what is right and wrong; especially the young ones 5 years
and under. They watch the lovely Disney shows where all dogs are
essential humanized and they therefore think that they can pet dogs
without care. Sure we parents tell them not to approach any dog without
parental approval, but sometimes, again especially young ones, they may
forget about it and remember the movies. Regardless, no blame can be
assigned to a child EVER. They are learning about society. The point
is, parents can try to be omnipotent, but of course cannot. I know I
cannot relax for even a second on most visits to the park because of
all the dogs running around without leashes. On one occassion in
Vancouver's Stanley Park, my 2 year old daughter was playing in the
sand when a group of people strolled up and sat down on the seawall
with their dog (some kind of mixed breed - but large). No leash. Do you
think I could have fun with my family? No freakin way. My eyes were
glued to the damn dog! And I was justified! Not more than 5 minutes
passed when the dog lunged for my daughter who was about 30 feet away
while barking aggressively. Well I instantly jumped up and yelled at
the dog who backed away. Did the group of people do anything? Nope.
Didn't scold the dog, on the contrary they consoled it! Didn't
apologize. Didn't leave either. We had too. My innocent daughter can't
play in the freakin sand in the public parks that I paid for through
taxes. Let me tell you if that dog had of kept on going - it would not
have lived another second. If I had been like most parents I may have
been distracted by something else and may have missed that split second
opportunity to scare away the dog.
I have had enough of this thread. I will not post again. I have said
what needs to be said and all those child killer dog owners with the
blinders on can keep on blabbering to themselves. I think your rally is
a ridiculous, unimportant, inflamatory (to say the least) and a waste
of time. However, it may be worthwhile to view from a distance just to
see all those people walking around with plastic bags over their hands!
:-) lol. Whoops, that joke assumes law abiding citizens. lol.
Donna Whitman
wrote:
Let's not forget their jaw and the way it locks on whatever it's
biting ... MUCH harder to get a pit bull to let go than say a poodle.
Rich Johnson
news:JivOe.152222$wr.70504@clgrps12:
As much as I see your points above and below (mostly snipped for space
not spite), certain breeds are agressive, as this has being thier
function for many generations. Just as wild animals can't be trusted
after "taming" even after genertions, some breeds instincts can't be
completly trained out. A dog may be as good as gold while the familiar
trainer is present, but can be very different when strangers are present.
The other possibility is that if they are running with a pack completly
different behaviours may be observed.
> instinctual behaviour can be curbed, and modified..again, my dog is a
> good example.. she's part Siberian Husky, and used to be untrustworthy
> due to one of their traits..wandering.. a Sibe will wander just for
> the sake of wandering.. through careful and consistant training, my
> girl will now not leave the yard without escort..not for any reason..
> and she's been tested with stray cats, and other dogs.. she goes to
> the property line, and stops..
Sibs have also being know to empty a henhouse, just because they can. We
ad a big old Siberian who was the best dog ever with our kids, but
because of that I was watchfull when other kids were around, especally
strangers.
> what most people seem to have blinders on about is that banning pit
> bulls isn't going to solve the problem, it's merely going to destroy a
> dog breed.. the problem will still exist.. the people who allow the
> pits et.al. to behave in a manner that is dangerous to the general
> public will still be out there, and will still be able to get a
> dog..which will then be turned into the same aggressive, dangerous dog
> as the pit bull before him.. if we allow this type of legislation,
> where will is stop? what breeds will escape the breed specific
> legislation if these people keep turning a new breed into the latest
> media frenzy of dog attacks?
Weren't dobi's getting a bad rap in the 70's and 80"s
> all this legislation does is play into the hands of PETA, who want pet
> ownership of anykind abolished, and will wantonly kill dogs and cats
> to suit their own agenda..that of getting rid of the companion animal
> altogether.. is that what we want?
They've won a round in England, a terrorist organization has caused a
farm that produced guinea pigs for research has being terrorised into
abandoning that product. The final straw was the stealing of their Granny
or Mummy's (bad joke probably abound) corpse out of the ground
> if it isn't what you want, be careful what you support..
Those nutters are dangerous, I watch for them
Al Smith
>>>They were deliberately bred to be agressive and dominant dogs, so
>>>that they would have the courage to combat large beasts, and other
>>>dogs. That's where the "pit" in pit bull comes from. They were
>>>bred for the fighting pits. That aspect of their nature cannot be
>>>removed with kindness and loving care. It is always there, waiting
>>>to come out.
>
>
> Let's not forget their jaw and the way it locks on whatever it's
> biting ... MUCH harder to get a pit bull to let go than say a poodle.
Yes. That's why, if a pit bull makes a lunge for you, never stick
your hand or arm in its face to ward it off. It will just latch
onto your hand and not let go, doing some real and maybe permanent
damage. It you don't offer it your arms, it will probably go for
your legs, but if your arms are free, at least you have something
to fight with.
santos
<jimd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124903261.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
i notice you snipped my first paragraph and didnt respond to it, when i
asked if you think that banning pit bulls will stop all dog attacks, and
that the same people wont just get other dogs. Oddly enough the law in
ontario bans only pit bulls, it doesnt ban rottweilers, who actually caused
a number of the attacks cited. As for my citations, here are a couple of
examples, first of, as to what happens when there is a breed ban:
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/WinnipegBites.htm
notice how the highest number of attacks throughout the entire spread from
194-2003 was from german sheppards... guess you'll be able to call them
'babykillers' next...
also here are stats on the activity that lead to dog bites in canada in
1996, the only year i have found posted so far, as well as some other
relative data:
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/chirpp/injrep-rapbles/dogbit_e.html
For someone using terms such as 'babykilling dogs' your certainly one to
point at the pro-dog crowd's posts as 'inflammatory'. At any rate, go do
some reading.
santos
firecat
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:47:36 GMT, firecat <fir...@someplace.com>
> enlightened us with:
>
>
>>Guru wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:27:54 GMT, firecat <fir...@someplace.com>
>>>enlightened us with:
>>
>>>So they should be registered like hand guns? Lets be honest, this
>>>breed is a problem and just by the answer you gave above I would
>>>assume that you understand their potential danger to society.
>>
>>of course i realize their POTENTIAL danger.. that's why these dogs
>>shouldn't be available to just anyone.. that doesn't mean that a breed
>>bad of pits is going to stop dog attacks in Ontario..it only means that
>>the people who allow pits to attack will choose another breed and create
>>an equally dangerous animal to attack.. the point i'm trying to make is
>>that the breed doesn't make the dog a vicious killer..it gives it a
>>higher propensity toward aggressiveness if it is not in the handling of
>>someone who knows what they are doing, and is capable of being the boss
>>in the relationship without abusing the dog in order to bring out more
>>aggressive traits.. i've never once said those traits were not there..
>>i've said they can be modified and controlled in the proper hands
>
>
> control......?
those two would be a definite start.. temperament testing, licensing
people to be permitted to own a dog that has this type of potential, we
license people to drive cars, a potentially dnagerous tool, same thing
with guns.. why not with dogs that are potentially dangerous too? if
each dog that was bred was registered, and -had- to be registered or
euthanized, then we'd be well on the way to controlling the danger of
their natural instincts.. and i'm not really singling pits out for
this.. i'm a firm believer that anyone who wants to own a pet should
have to prove that they will have the responsibility to care for that
pet properly, and that it will be trained and controlled for the safety
of the community, from dog bites, to attacks, to the dog running loose
and causing a car accident because someone swerved to avoid it.. dog
owners need to be dealt with accordingly when their dog is the cause of
any accident or attack.. it really does fall upon the dog owner to be
responsible for their pet..
>
>>>
>>>>>>the dangerous dog laws that we have make sense..they just need to be
>>>>>>enforced better, and the SPCA, or Animal Control needs to have canine
>>>>>>behaviourists on staff for temperament testing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Like Pit Bulls vary by dog! LOL!.
>>>>
>>>>yes, actually they do.. just like dogs of any breed, they are all
>>>>individuals with their own individual personalities.. and if you think
>>>>that's not the case with dogs, then you haven't the foggiest clue what
>>>>you're talking about..
>>>
>>>
>>>But I do understand that breeds are bred for certain characteristics
>>>of behavior etc. Some are bred for intelligence, some for hunting,
>>>some for retrieving, some for lots of different reasons,,,,, but the
>>>Pit bull has been bred for its fighting tenacity and killing
>>>instincts. I don't think that can be denied and I am of the opinion
>>>that,,,, that kind of bred can never be trusted no matter how well
>>>trained to be a loving and gentle pet.
>>
>>you're entitled to your opinion.. i won't argue opinions, there's no
>>point.. and yes, pits were bred for fighting tenacity against other
>>dogs..not people.. once again, these dogs had to be trustworthy when in
>>the pits, because the handlers had to be able to break up a dog fight at
>>will.. if the dog was human aggressive, that could never happen..
>
> But the problem with the Pit Bulls is that they have been bred for
> fighting,,,,, but they haven't been bred for fighting ,,,excluding
> humans. They will fight...period. Isn't that correct?
no, the problem with pit bulls is ownership by people who either
encourage the aggressive behaviour, or don't know enough about the dog
they've chosen to own to modify the behaviour to an acceptable level..
these dogs were -originally- bred for pit fighting.. they are now
supposed to be being bred as pets, not as fighters.. not that it will
stop them completely, but the more pits that are bred for a good,
level, non-aggressive temperament, the less aggressive pits we will
see.. not all pits are fighters either.. there were many back in the
glory days of pit fighting that were put down for not being aggressive
enough for the pit.. it's a matter of breeding and training..and if that
were controlled, the dogs would not be the problem they appear to be.. i
still maintain that there are not nearly as many problems as it
seems,comparatively speaking.. the pit issues, you hear about, because
everybody and their brother runs to the media about a pit attack..but
the other breeds of dogs are just as likely to bite, and are almost
never reported to police/doctors, let alone the media.. other dogs could
be biting just as much, or more, with almost the same amounts of damage,
but because they are not pit bulls, you never hear about it..
>
>>i spoke with the people at my vet hospital today.. they've told me that
>>there are a large number of dog bites, mostly by dogs under 30 pounds..
>>one vet nurse also told me that she knows of 2 golden retrievers
>>(everyone's favourite family dog) who had to be put down, in their vet
>>hospital alone, for severely damaging children by biting.. all dogs are
>>capable of biting, all dogs will, for vaious reasons.. you just don't
>>hear the media hype about the labrador retrievers, the goldens, the
>>newfoundlands, the yorkies and chihuahuas.. i also realize that the
>>damage that can be inflicted by a pit is much worse than likely damage
>>by a yorkie..but the point is, why should those small dogs be permitted
>>to behave badly and live when people like yourself call for the mass
>>killing of another breed for the same reason?
>
> The most prolific biters are Golden's. Nor because of any breeding but
> just due to their sheer volumes.
then why are we singling out pit bulls? personally, although i am
definitely an animal lover, i seriously think that people should have to
apply for a license to own a dog..any dog, any breed.. if they can't
show that they will be responsible pet owners, they should be denied the
privilege of owning a pet..period. if a person shows they cannot safely
drive a motor vehicle, they are denied a motor vehicle license.. same
with guns.. why not with dogs? it would certainly give better control
over the potentially dangerous dogs, and would also give law enforcement
a better opportunity to police canine behaviour.. if every dog bred were
registered at birth with a central database, and in order to own a dog,
you had to apply, and register as well, and were required by law to keep
your pet ownership records updated or risk never being allowed to own a
pet again, don't you think that would give the community a better
feeling of safety? if there were built in cross-references with CRA, so
that if you move, and report it on your income tax, but do not update
your pet ownership registry within a specific period of time, you get
called upon by law enforcement, it would make it rather difficult for
anyone to sneak in dog ownership without registration..
>>>
>>>>>Dogs are bred for their attributes,,, and the attributes of Pit Bulls
>>>>>are fighting skills. Just like Labs are bred fro their retrieving
>>>>>skills etc.......
>>>>>
>>>>>>the instincts and agresssivenes can't be trained out of a dog, and i
>>>>>>apologize for the wording.. the animal can be trained to know that the
>>>>>>behaviour is unacceptable, and if the trainer is consistant, and good at
>>>>>>their job, then the animal can be consistantly well behaved.. i still
>>>>>>would never leave an animal that has instinctual behaviours that may
>>>>>>cause aggressiveness alone with children, but i won't leave my dog alone
>>>>>>with children either.. and she's not at all aggressive.. i'm just
>>>>>>careful and responsible..
>>>
>>>
>>>But what you are saying is that its OK for someone to be given an AK47
>>>automatic rifle and as long as they are trained in its use thy will
>>>never present any danger to humanity. I have a big problem with these
>>>also as they have but a single use and it is to kill a lot in a hurry.
>
>
> Not what I was saying at all. I was comparing AK47's to the same
> argument for Pit Bull ownership... ie if you train the Pit bull then
> you won't have any problems....
>
> I consider that argument, for PB's and AK47's, both to be erroneous.
it's a bad analogy, that's certain..
with pit bulls, or any other potentially dangerous dog breed, training
is a huge part of modifying bad or dangerous behaviour.. breeding and
registration would go a long way toward helping with the issue
>
>>>One can call it whatever kind of gun they wish but it still boils don
>>>to the simple fact that an AK47 was developed to kill,,,,, people.
>>
>>and pit bulls were not bred to kill people.. you're comparing apples and
>>oranges again.. :) i understand your point, bad analogy.. training a
>>dog is completely different from training a person to use an automatic
>>rifle.. people can and will be deliberately malicious.. and you are
>>training them to use a tool.. if you train a dog, you are training the
>>tool..
>
>
> I agree PB's are not trained to kill people,,,, they do it by nature
> and breeding.
you've taken two comments and interchanged them.. i did not say pits
were not trained to kill people, they most definitely are.. i said they
are not BRED to kill people, and that is a fact.. they are bred to be
dog aggressive, not human aggressive..
>
>
>>>
>>>>>Well, I had a dog that I wouldn't hesitate to leave with children
>>>>>because that dog wasn't aggressive ...... by nature or training.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the reason why breeds are different!
>>>
>>>
>>>That's my point. Pit bulls have been bred to kill......
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>then you were taking an awful chance with the children.. any dog can
>>>>bite, and will bite if it feels threatened.. they are dogs, they all
>>>>have instincts, and a dogs instincts are to fight or flee.. it has
>>>>nothing to do with the breed, it has to do with the temperament of the
>>>>dog, the training and care that has been put into the dog..but you've
>>>>already shown twice that you have no understanding of canine behaviour..
>
>
> I have a very good understanding of dogs. I have probably owned as
> many as you. But we both are neither Vets or anything other than dog
> owners. Well I 'm not and I'm guessing you are not also. ....
i'm not a vet, but what does that have to do with anything? vets don't
know everything about canine behaviour either.. :) i've been
researching dogs and dog breeds for years, i've spoken to animal
behaviourists at length regarding aggressive behaviour and how to
recognize it.. i've also owned a heck of a lot of dogs over the years
and been exposed to many more..i've been bit, i've been attacked and
knocked down.. whether you've owned as many dogs as i have, or
experienced the things that i've experienced, i don't know..it's
irrelevant.. i've done the research.. i've put years into reading,
researching, and gathering facts about dogs in general..pits, presas,
and Fila Brasileros in particular.. i've spoken to breeders, vets, and
animal control officers.. i know what the facts are, and i know that
most dog attacks are preciptated by signs that a good, responsible dog
owner should pick up on, and control the dog before the attack ever
happens.. again, the responsibility and fault lie with the owner of the
dog for not having care and control..banning the breed isn't going to
change that fact, it will only change the breed in the media spotlight
>
>
>>>
>>>Yes ,, I agree that all dogs are potential biters. Seems the smaller
>>>they are the more they tend to bite. But biting isn't the issue here.
>>>Pit bulls go way past biting.
>>
>>so take the pit bulls away from the people who allow them to behave
>>badly.. that doesn't have to mean banning the breed, it merely needs to
>>have better practices on who can own a dog and who can't.. and if a
>>specific pit bull attacks a human with no provocation, then it should be
>>put down.. but the ones who have done no wrong do not deserve to be
>>punished.. unless, and until, they do something to deserve it.. and them
>>just being a pit bull does not guarantee that they will ever bite..
>
>
> Again, I don't think anyone is concerned with dog bites. What they are
> concerned with is the mauling and killing that the breed is known for.
> And again, I'm not blaming all the breed,,,,but we can't separate the
> good from the bad so I am comfortable in allowing the breed to be
> discontinued...
with proper legislation, yes, we can seperate the good from the bad..
all it requires is temperament testing by a certified canine
behaviourist, good, responsible breeding practices that consists of
reputable breeders breeding specifically for good, even tempered dogs,
and never breeding a dog that shows agression so it doesn't pass that
temperament issue down to its offspring.. it can be done, and if people
would stop supporting puppy mills abd backyard breeders, it very likely
would happen faster than you think..
>
>>>>>>instinctual behaviour can be curbed, and modified..again, my dog is a
>>>>>>good example.. she's part Siberian Husky, and used to be untrustworthy
>>>>>>due to one of their traits..wandering.. a Sibe will wander just for the
>>>>>>sake of wandering.. through careful and consistant training, my girl
>>>>>>will now not leave the yard without escort..not for any reason.. and
>>>>>>she's been tested with stray cats, and other dogs.. she goes to the
>>>>>>property line, and stops..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And probably isn't an instinctive killer either,,,,right?
>>>>
>>>>she's a German Shepherd/Siberian Husky mix.. you figure it out..
>>>
>>>
>>>OK,,, neither of those dog breeds have been bred to fight/kill.
>>
>>have you ever met a GSD who didn't chase cats, or at least want to? i
>>haven't.. and most of them would kill a cat if they caught it.. Sibes
>>are known wanderers, and they were bred to survive in the north.. with
>>or without human intervention.. they can, and will, kill if they feel
>>the urge, or need..
>
>
> Humans?
if they feel the need, are hungry enough, yes.. but again, you're
assuming that pits were bred to kill humans, and they were not.. it is
human interference in aspects of poor breeding and deliberately training
them to be aggressive toward humans that causes that issue.. pits were
not bred to kill humans.. that's a fact.. research it and you'll stop
with the false assumption that it is natural instinct that causes pits
to maul and kill people.. >
>
>>>
>>>>>>thing is, there are pit bulls and rotties out there who are wonderful
>>>>>>dogs, friendly, affectionate, and as trustworthy around people as any
>>>>>>dog ever is..and those dogs will suffer by this type of legislation as
>>>>>>well as the aggressive, nasty vicious ones.. the general public would be
>>>>>>much better served by ridding itself of the dogs, of any breed, who are
>>>>>>dangerous, agressive, or vicious, rather than banning pit bulls and
>>>>>>leaving the nasty German Shepherds, Dobermans, Mastiffs, chihuahuas and
>>>>>>cockers around to cause mischief and mayhem..
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not arguing that there are probably some nice dogs lumped into
>>>that lot,,,, but the problem arises when those that aren't nice attack
>>>and seriously injure or kill someone. There isn't any way to sort out
>>>the bad in the bred up front so I am quite happy to see the breed
>>>banned if doing so will prevent just one child from being mauled to
>>>death.
>>>
>>>Lets be realistic,,, nobody absolutely has to own a Pit bull.....
>>
>>if you agree that the problem arises when those that aren't nice attack,
>>then why not stop at euthanizing THOSE dogs, and leave the ones that are
>>nice alone, unless they show aggressiveness that could potentially lead
>>to an attack? why ban the breed for the actions of the smaller
>>percentage of dogs? personally, i'm all for putting down an aggressive
>>dog, of any breed.. i'm not for condemning all dogs of a specific breed
>>because some of them have not been trained properly, or worse, have been
>>trained to attack humans for any reason..
>
>
> I would so long as someone "guaranteed" that the "up to now" nice ones
> didn't revert to the reason they were bred the way they were....
>
> Buy neither you , I or anyone else can give that guarantee.....
again, they were not bred for that purpose, so if they are not trained
to harm humans, there is nothing to revert to..
> And I just can't accept that as a valid reason for anyone owning and
> maintaining a an aggressive dog that has the potential to inflict,,,,
> death.
then you should never own any dog, cat, or horse.. or any of a large
number of other pets.. they all have the potential to cause death, and
many have done that very thing.. it's just that pits happen to make the
news..
>
>
>>>>>>all this legislation does is play into the hands of PETA, who want pet
>>>>>>ownership of anykind abolished, and will wantonly kill dogs and cats to
>>>>>>suit their own agenda..that of getting rid of the companion animal
>>>>>>altogether.. is that what we want?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a crazy statement!
>>>>
>>>>how is it crazy? read the statements by Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of
>>>>PETA.. the statements i made above merely echo what she and her group
>>>>are quite open about.. research the facts before telling me that i'm
>>>>making crazy statements
>>>
>>>
>>>You are saying that PETA has stated that all pet ownership should be
>>>abolished?
>>>
>>>PETA have taken a stand against human interference in the breeding of
>>>animals.....
>>
>>no, PETA has stated that pet ownership has no place on this earth.. i've
>>read it in their mission statement, and in their magazines.. as well,
>>you can do a google search on Ingrid Newkirk and find many quotes where
>>she has said this very thing.. PETA is not for ethical treatment of
>>animals, they are for humans not owning animals, period.. do the
>>research, i already have
>
>
> That was my point. They are against human interference in breeding.
> What is breeding other than humans maintaining the desired traits that
> "humans" want?
read Ingrid Newkirk's statements on the internet, google her.. they are
not against human interference in breeding, they are against people
owning pets..period.. not just breeding them, owning them, caring for
them, having them as companions in their homes.. PETA feels that dogs
and cats should be left without human intervention of all kinds, at all
times, and left to roam the world at will..
> But you are avoiding the bigger problem with PB's. They are much more
> dangerous (generally) and deadly than your common domestic dog. You
> agreed with that when you stated that they needed to be assessed by a
> "dog therapist" to determine their fit as a "reasonable"pet
yes, as do Mastiffs, and any other breed that has the jaw strength to
inflict that sort of damage
>>
>>>
>>>>this is the last post i will respond to of yours, as i refuse to engage
>>>>in a battle with you over this when you cannot be bothered to even look
>>>>for the facts.. if you choose to do the research that i've spent the
>>>>past 10 years doing, then i may discuss this with you..
>>>
>>>
>>>I have given you my view as a parent.
>>>
>>>I have no use for anyone's perceived right to own a dangerous animal
>>>if it places any person in any position of harm.
>>
>>i agree with that.. that's why i would like to see stricter rules for
>>people who own these dogs, not necessarily banning the breed
>
>
> But that in its self is an admission that these dogs are dangerous to
> the general public......
all dogs are potentially dangerous to the general public.. and i condone
the euthanization of those of any breed that cause harm to the public, i
just don't condone the mass killing of a breed, simply because it is
that breed..
>
>
>>>You are presenting the "facts" of those that wish to own aggressive
>>>animals. That does not make your facts correct......
>>>
>>>The facts are....
>>>
>>>Pit Bulls have been bred to fight and kill
>>
>>yes, bred to fight and kill other dogs, but specifically bred to handle
>>human intervention in those fights and not be human aggressive.. those
>>that are, have not been bred properly, or trained properly
>
>
> But that does not change the fact that they do attack maul and
> sometimes kill people.....
nope, it doesn't..but with proper laws, that can be changed..the breed
doesn't have to be destroyed, only controlled
>
>>>Pit Bulls have not been bred to be gentle companions
>>
>>but their behaviour can be modified so they can be just that..in the
>>proper hands
>
>
> Again, That's not the problem of the general population. Who is going
> to ensure that such a behavior modification take place and is
> successful? Who will guarantee that society is safe ?
done properly, a registration and licensing program for owning dogs will
guarantee the public safety as much as it does with motor vehicles and
guns..
>
>>>Pit Bulls have mauled and killed for no apparent reason
>>
>>i haven't seen a single case of that.. every case of a dog mauling and
>>killing, when it is investigated, it has been found that there are
>>reasons.. but no dog should be permitted to maul or kill
>
>
> But from what I have seen the dog owners and=others have been quite
> vocal about the general public not being aware of what the dogs are
> doing/feeling. Again I will state that not our problem to interpret
> the mind of the PB,,,,,,
understanding the nature of the beast goes a long way toward avoiding
any dangerous situations..
>
>>>Pit Bulls are not socially acceptable by the majority of the
>>>population
>>
>>the majority of the population has voted on this?
>
>
> Nope but the consensus is that the people that have spoken out would
> like to have them gone.....
you stated the majority did not find this breed to be socially
acceptable..if the majority hasn't voted on it, then your statement was
false.. and those who speak out do not necessarily represent the majority
>
>>>People want priotection from these types of dogs
>>>
>>>
>>
>>yes, and they should have it.. i completely agree that these dogs who
>>are vicious, and killing, should not be permitted to live..but that's
>>not the entire breed.. and if this breed is banned, it will be another
>>breed that takes its place and becomes the new vicious dog of choice..
>
>
> How do you separate the good from the bad ,,,,, "up front"?
i've answered that a few time in this thread..
do me a favour? snip some of this will ya? i can never decide what's
needed for background for others reading a post and what isn't..lol
firecat
the locking jaw is an old wives' tale.. they do not lock, they are just
extremely strong, so trying to pry them apart is difficult.. not
impossible..
firecat
pack behaviour is definitely different from an individual dog.. no
question about it..
regarding 'training' instinct out, that's where it starts..behaviour
modification.. it continues with reputable breeding, those who will
breed for temperament.. i'm not going to go into huge detail, it's all
in another post..
>
>
>
>>instinctual behaviour can be curbed, and modified..again, my dog is a
>>good example.. she's part Siberian Husky, and used to be untrustworthy
>>due to one of their traits..wandering.. a Sibe will wander just for
>>the sake of wandering.. through careful and consistant training, my
>>girl will now not leave the yard without escort..not for any reason..
>>and she's been tested with stray cats, and other dogs.. she goes to
>>the property line, and stops..
>
>
> Sibs have also being know to empty a henhouse, just because they can. We
> ad a big old Siberian who was the best dog ever with our kids, but
> because of that I was watchfull when other kids were around, especally
> strangers.
that's exactly my point.. Sibes can and will kill, just like any other
dog.. banning pits won't solve the current problem.. it will just change
the breed
>
>
>
>>what most people seem to have blinders on about is that banning pit
>>bulls isn't going to solve the problem, it's merely going to destroy a
>>dog breed.. the problem will still exist.. the people who allow the
>>pits et.al. to behave in a manner that is dangerous to the general
>>public will still be out there, and will still be able to get a
>>dog..which will then be turned into the same aggressive, dangerous dog
>>as the pit bull before him.. if we allow this type of legislation,
>>where will is stop? what breeds will escape the breed specific
>>legislation if these people keep turning a new breed into the latest
>>media frenzy of dog attacks?
>
>
> Weren't dobi's getting a bad rap in the 70's and 80"s
>
>
yes, as were German Shepherds, and more recently Rottweilers
>
>
>
>>all this legislation does is play into the hands of PETA, who want pet
>>ownership of anykind abolished, and will wantonly kill dogs and cats
>>to suit their own agenda..that of getting rid of the companion animal
>>altogether.. is that what we want?
>
>
> They've won a round in England, a terrorist organization has caused a
> farm that produced guinea pigs for research has being terrorised into
> abandoning that product. The final straw was the stealing of their Granny
> or Mummy's (bad joke probably abound) corpse out of the ground
>
>
>>if it isn't what you want, be careful what you support..
>
>
> Those nutters are dangerous, I watch for them
>
>
>
they are that..
rwh.j...@gmail.com
firecat wrote:
> Rich Johnson wrote:
> > firecat <fir...@someplace.com> wrote in
> > news:JivOe.152222$wr.70504@clgrps12:
> >
> >
> >>Rich Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>>firecat <fir...@someplace.com> wrote in
> >>>news:7bdOe.233822$on1.18901@clgrps13:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Some snippage
> >>>
I've snipped all the discussion, just to save space
I think you and I must respectfully agree to disagree on this point, I
see your points, and I believe you see mine but I don't think either
one of us is going to sway the other
Sorry about the civility, I realise that it is bad form on usenet, but
I don't have the time to be nasty right now, next thread ok?
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada
jimd...@gmail.com
injuries occurred when the patient had no direct interaction with the
dog, 28.9%." LOL - you said MOST dog attacks took place when a child
ignores signs and walks up to a dog to pet it! You imbecile! Are you
that ignorant to post reference sites, tell people to read it, and yet
you casually make up your own stats?!?!??
I absolutely had to post this in response to Santos and his antics.
Anyway, I won't bother to read your responses because this effort has
been draining and it is a little like trying to teach an old dog new
tricks... *snicker*
Al Smith
> kill. There is a huge difference in getting nipped by a dog and
> getting severly injured by one...
That's right, a lot of dog's will nip when they get excited or
frightened, but that's not the same has having your arm chewed off.
firecat
sounds good Rich.. respectfully disagreeing is much better than
continuing to hash something out when neither of us -wants- to change
our minds.. we definitely can see where the other is coming from, but i
guess i'm a bit of an idealist.. i figure that we -can- actually control
who owns potentially dangerous dogs, and that's the way this should be
dealt with.. unfortunately, the powers that be don't feel that they have
any control over people, so must massacre an entire race of dog..
it's sad that the world has come to this, where genocide is accepted
because no one wants to make people obey laws..
firecat
you guys call dogs taking two whole fingers off a child nipping? i
don't.. and i couldn't care less if lots of dogs will nip when excited,
MINE won't.. it's an absolutely unacceptable behavior from any dog that
wants to abide with my family.. i don't care if it's a pit or a yorkie..
i will not tolerate aggression toward humans from my dog..if everyone
felt the same way, this would not be an issue.. sad that a whole breed
must suffer due to the stupidity and acceptance of people who can't be
bothered to teach a dog to behave in an acceptable manner..
just for the record, for any who do not know, my dog does NOT come from
good breeding..she's the product of a female that was unattended while
in heat.. shepherd/husky is an assumption based on the mom, and the look
of the litter.. and this dog of mine is the ONLY one in an entire litter
of 13 that is well behaved and has never shown aggression toward
humans.. 3 have been put down that i know of because they caused damage
to people.. that won't happen to mine, because i won't, and have never,
accepted bad behavior from her.. she will NOT step out of line, because
she knows, beyond doubt, that there will be consequences to behaving
badly, whether that be biting, nipping, or jumping on people without
permission.. absolutely unacceptable..
anyway, i guess the best thing to do with Al and Guru is the same as
Rich.. agree to disagree, because you will never convince me that
massacring an entire breed of dog is the right answer.. and i'll never
convince you that the dog is not the problem, and banning this breed
will only cause another breed to be persecuted, until dogs are gone
altogether due to the abusive element switching breeds every time one
gets banned..
Rich Johnson
news:9%qPe.209278$HI.61090@edtnps84:
I was going to snip, but anyone coming in late should see the all of
above...
I disagree with the use of the word genocide, in that I don't believe
they are going to kill all the existing dogs. And as I said earlier, I
don't necessarly agree with banning, I was thinking more along the lines
of restricting. Who knows, maybe in 100 years from now good breeding
will have removed the agression out of all dogs, without loosing any of
the good characteristics sych as the Siberians loyality and endurance
(for example)
Wonkey
I have done a little research and I have changed my mind on the whole
Breed Specific Ban thing. Here's why:
The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or
a friend.
When a child less than 4 years old is the victim, the family dog was
the attacker half the time (47%), and the attack almost always happened
in the family home (90%).
So if we actually get more Pitbulls maybe we will teach the stupid
owners not to get one!
If we ban Pitbulls and bad owners go out and get another breed the
chances of the 'next' dog being physically able to inflict the same
level of damage is 0. So even if they go out and train another dog to
eat people we're still better off anyway. Santos is likely a crack
head anyway, he went out and got a big dog to compensate for his short
stature and to protect his stash. Everyone knows only crack heads and
drug dealers get these type of dogs.
firecat
if we were lucky, that's exactly what would happen.. restricted
ownership of potentially dangerous dogs, and selective breeding to get
the best temperament possible..however, with the masses of banning of
breeds in different parts of the world, it won't happen, because the
dogs won't be bred enough to have a large enough gene pool to choose
from for temperament.. that's what banning will do instead of restricting..
firecat
don't know much about pits do ya? they aren't 'big dogs' they are 50
pounds or less.. and the next dog could be a rottie, or a mastiff of one
sort or another, and i guarantee you they are more than capable of
inflicting the same level of damage as a pit.. perhaps you should do
some more research so you can be more certin of your facts..
Wonkey
100 lbs! Here's a link with a picture of a 150 pound pit
http://www.4utah.com/local_news/local_headlines/story.aspx?content_id=3E5A2981-ECE7-46EE-96DA-FB6358F2409
Perhaps your pit chewed off a little too much of your brain? Or at
least wait to post until you come down off your crack high!
firecat
a) i don't own a pit, pay attention to the thread, and you'd know that.
b) as many here can tell you, i don't do crack..
c) anyone who tells you they own a 150 pound pit bull is out of their
minds.. a dog of that size is not a pit bull.. it may possibly be an
American Staffordshire Terrier, a dog very similar in look to a pit
bull, but larger.. or, it may be a mastiff.. it definitely isn't a pit
bull.. sorry.. do the research.. i already have.. 10-15 years of it..
and your link doesn't work..
here's one that gives you the UKC standard for the pit bull, and that
includes the fact that the pit bull is a -medium- sized sturdy dog..
Wonkey
Allegedly Asks Police to Kill Pet Officers Wounded' and read the first
article.
firecat
i did that.. and it doesn't matter what someone wants to say their dog's
breed is, pit bulls are a medium sized dog..any dog that looks like a
pit and is 150 pounds, is not a pit.. it's a mastiff, or something of
the sort.. pits are much smaller..
look it up.. check the UKC website and read the standard for the pit
bull.. it's the only one that would be right, considering it was created
specifically so that people who owned pit bulls would have a registry
similar to the AKC.. if i recall correctly, without looking it up again,
the UKC was created in the 1940's
Wonkey
years during your crack phase? What's with huge range?
You say the best source of research would be a website "created
specifically so that people who owned pit bulls" could post
information? Is this the same place where you get all your
information? I bet it says all kind of good things about pits there.
As for your "medium- sized sturdy dog", where did you get your actual
50 lbs from? I guess you probably can't remember but likely during
your 13 or 14 year of research.
Just to prove I can bullshit just I well as you - I did 26 years of
research, that includes weekends.
firecat
grow up..
the website i mentioned is the website for the United Kennel Club.. the
UKC.. it's a similar registry to the AKC (American Kennel Club), CKC
(Canadian Kennel Club), and the FCI, which is the European equivalent to
the others.. it's not for people who own pits to post information, it's
not a bloody forum.. it's a kennel club website, the kennel club is the
place where dogs are registered, for show purposes, etc. you do know
what that means, right?
as far as the 10-15 years.. too bad you weren't following the whole
thread, then you'd know.. but i'll tell you again.. i started
researching dog breeds in general 15 years ago, and became more specific
in that research 10 years ago, when i started looing closer at the pit
bulls, presa canarios, fila brasilieros, shiba inu, and a few other
breeds that are all similar in nature.. actually, in comparison with the
Fila and the Presa, the pits are pussy cats.. they don't have an
agressive bone in their body in comparison to those two breeds..
if you've done 26 years of research about pits, you've wasted your
life.. you don't know a damn thing about them except what you read in
the media..
good luck with that
dogk...@gmail.com
Joan
dirk
statistics,
In the last 18 months, 12 of the 18 confirmed dog-related fatalities in
the U.S. -- or 67% -- have been caused by the pit bull terrier, a breed
that accounts for only 1% of the U.S. dog population.
Frankly I don't care why these dogs attack. And until they learn to
talk we will never know why, you can speculate all you want about bad
owners, bad breeders, bad kids... whatever. Simple put the cost
outweighs the benefit, the benefit of you or owners like you using pits
to stroke their ego, outweighs the costs in lost life. Lives that will
most likely be children ( according to the statistics ). And until the
goverment can start the multi-billion dollar program to test owners,
breeders and register all dogs I say we just ban them. Thanks for your
suggestion about the other breeds as well, after we ban pitbulls we can
just add those to the list as well : )
Good luck with your research, although maybe try not to only talk to
pit owners.
Leelee
Wow, I found this late, but better late than never. I have just
finished reading this entire thread and at first I was astounded by the
ignorance and lack of education that several of the posters here have.
What astounded me even more was how some of the posters were clearly
educated yet failed to educate themselves about the topic at hand, but
this didn't stop them from having such firm opinions. I believe that
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but an educated opinion is
one that we should all be able to respect. So I have concluded that
those opposed to the pit bull breed have been motivated by fear, and
rightly so due to the medias portrayal. But can we all stop for a
moment and agree that the media sensationalizes almost everything? And
if for a moment we can begin to agree that indeed our global network of
media is a sensationalistic empire, we can start to sift through the
many facts of the pit bull and learn the truth.
Pitbulls are medium sized dogs with incredible strenght, loyal
devotion, and feared by the mass population due to the medias portrayal
of these dogs. Just because someone claims that they have a 150lb
pitbull doesn't make it so, I can say anything I want on the internet
and superimpose a picture to press my point. Perhaps someone claimed
that the 150lb dog was a pitbull when it was a presa canario, or a cane
corso. Both of these dogs look similiar to a pit but are very much a
different breed. The woman killed in LA was not killed by pits, but by
presas (but this has already been clarified by someone who has taken
the time to educate themselves!)
And Joan is right, it is for all dog lovers. It isn't just the pitbulls
that will be subjected to death row, but it will be any dog that has
been deemed to resemble a pitbull. Oh no, watch out all of you who have
a boxer mix, your dog might be considered a pit just because it looks
like one. So for a moment here, put aside your biases about pitbulls
and have some compassion for those who don't have a pitbull, but a dog
that might look like one- what will life be like for them? I hardly
believe you will care, as it seems that some of your biases are based
purely on dogs alone, and it isn't breed specific. But just the same
hundreds of dogs that are not pitbulls will cease to exist on the 29th.
So this rally is for all dog lovers.
And yes, dogs aren't human, they are pets. However times are changing,
take a look in your yellow pages and you will see all of the services
that are being offered to our dear pets. Doggie daycares, dog spas, dog
weight watchers for crying out loud! These weren't around like they are
ten years ago, just imagine another ten years. Dogs have been
integrated much more deeply into the traditional nuclear family than
they once were. I do love children, and I do love my dog. Infact I
consider my dog an important part of my family, and I am not alone
here. I don't feel crazy for loving my dog, I feel wonderful about it!
We shouldn't judge people because they do or do not have the same
morals, shame on those here who have.
Unfortunatley it seems that those here who are convinced that pitbulls
are inherently evil are not likely to be dissuaded from their belief.
For every positive attribute we give to the pitbull you will
undoubtably find some other sensationalized portrayal to back up your
point. No, I am not saying that there has never been a pitbull attack
because there has. And yes, there have been fatalities due to the
pitbull, but a pomeranian killed an infant not so long ago, and I
highly doubt that you have heard of this.
I think that the major point all of the pro ban folks here are missing
is that it will not stop at pitbulls. Why are you all who are for the
demise of the pitbull forgetting that if these dogs are banned another
breed will take its place. I would at least respect your belief if you
wanted all dogs banned, it would just back up what you are saying
without all of the hypocrisy. I could begin to repeat what all of the
others here have said that are lovers of the pitbull breed, but again
you already know why we love these dogs. NO-NOT BECAUSE WE ARE CRACK
HEADS, NOT BECUASE WE ARE IRRESPONSIBLE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY, NOT BECAUSE
WE FEEL INSECURE AND NEED A STATUS SYMBOL. It is because we are not
fear driven about this breed, because we have taken the time to educate
ourselves properly about this wonderful breed of dog. I am enraged at
the irresponsible owners who have given this dog such a bad name, I
only wish that you would redirect your anger towards those who have
created such dogs that the media portrays, not the innocent.
And yes, what about those who have been killed by these dogs. Yes, we
should care about them. No one here is disputing that. But it seems
that ignorance is still placing 100% of the blame on the breed of dog.
Come on folks- educate yourselves before feeling so high and mighty.
Indeed it was the dog that did the killing, but why???? If you can't
reasonably answer that than I assure you that god forbid, once the pits
are banned an even more powerful designer breed WILL be created and
then you will wish you had thought a little more clearly about the
beliefs you held so firmly.
So please, redirect your anger and fear towards the dogs to the
rightful component. Those who are creating visciousness. Redirect your
anger to better licencing and animal control laws. Redirect your anger
to preventing irresponsible pet ownership. If you truely want a cause
to believe in that will show you immediate results, then do this.
As for all other dogs being pocket knives compared to pitbulls, come
on, have you ever heard of the Argentine Dogo, Cane Corso, Central
Asian Ovtcharka, Fila Brasileiro, or even my own goofy 200lb Saint
Bernard.
John van Gurp
On 26 Aug 2005, Leelee wrote:
> As for all other dogs being pocket knives compared to pitbulls, come
> on, have you ever heard of the Argentine Dogo, Cane Corso, Central
> Asian Ovtcharka, Fila Brasileiro, or even my own goofy 200lb Saint
> Bernard.
Ban them too!!! ;-)
firecat
try making sure that these attacks being blamed on pit bulls are
-really- pit bulls.. i'd be willing to bet that they aren't.. there are
many different breeds of dogs that look similar enough that most haven't
a clue what breed they actually are.. can YOU tell the difference
between a pit bull and an AmStaff?
i agree that no dog should be permitted to attack and damage/kill
humans, but banning them is not the answer.. responsible breeding and
registration is..
and i don't only talk to pit bull owners..had you read the thread, you
would have noticed that they are the lowest percentage of people i talk
to in my research.. vets, animal behaviouists, animal control officers,
and breeders of various dog breeds are a higher percentage than pit bull
owners..
firecat
<snip for space, not spite>
> So please, redirect your anger and fear towards the dogs to the
> rightful component. Those who are creating visciousness. Redirect your
> anger to better licencing and animal control laws. Redirect your anger
> to preventing irresponsible pet ownership. If you truely want a cause
> to believe in that will show you immediate results, then do this.
>
> As for all other dogs being pocket knives compared to pitbulls, come
> on, have you ever heard of the Argentine Dogo, Cane Corso, Central
> Asian Ovtcharka, Fila Brasileiro, or even my own goofy 200lb Saint
> Bernard.
>
thank you for supporting the comments i've been making, and quite
possibly in a more articulated manner..
you mention a couple breeds i didn't, like the Ovtcharka..
and i also thank you for mentioning your Saint.. great dogs, that no one
would think bad of..but at 200 pounds, what happens if they do turn?
someone gets badly hurt.. and todays saints are not the cuddly dogs that
people think they are.. another breed to mention is the Great Pyrenees..
also great dogs, but they were bred as large guardian dogs, to KILL
wolves that attack flocks of sheep in the Pyrenean Mountains.. yes, they
were bred specifically to kill other canine (and large feline) predators..
your requests for anger redirection are spot on, and those items would
be much better ways of dealing with aggressive dogs than breed specific
banning.. that won't work, another breed will just take the pits place..
wonder how many of these 'pit bull' attacks are actually made by the
30-50 pound pit bull that was originally bred to fight in the pits, and
how many are the Presas, Canes, and AmStaffs, or Boxer mixes like you
mention.. those statistics would be bloody interesting to see.. doubtful
anyone ever will though, since it's easier to blame them all on the pit
bull..
bark
>> In the last 18 months, 12 of the 18 confirmed dog-related fatalities in
>> the U.S. -- or 67% -- have been caused by the pit bull terrier, a breed
>> that accounts for only 1% of the U.S. dog population.
** can you provide your citation for these statistics please?
>>
Donna Whitman
wrote:
I'm not sure about Dirk but I've seen that quote in several articles
online. I went to the CDC web site and couldn't find the stats for the
last 18 months but did find this page which summarizes statistics from
1979 - 1998. Of the 238 known death from dog attacks, 66 were pit
bulls and 39 were Rottweilers.
G. Wayne Hines
wrote:
>Leelee wrote:
>
>> As for all other dogs being pocket knives compared to pitbulls, come
>> on, have you ever heard of the Argentine Dogo, Cane Corso, Central
>> Asian Ovtcharka, Fila Brasileiro, or even my own goofy 200lb Saint
>> Bernard.
>>
>
>thank you for supporting the comments i've been making, and quite
>possibly in a more articulated manner..
>
>you mention a couple breeds i didn't, like the Ovtcharka..
>
>and i also thank you for mentioning your Saint.. great dogs, that no one
>would think bad of..but at 200 pounds, what happens if they do turn?
>someone gets badly hurt.. and todays saints are not the cuddly dogs that
>people think they are.. another breed to mention is the Great Pyrenees..
I remember reading something years ago about Saint Bernard dogs. The
article mentioned that most people thought they were great dogs for
rescuing people in the mountains. But it went on to suggest that those
dogs ate more people than they rescued.
gwh
firecat
they were a product of poor breeding.. they were becoming very inbred
for years, and ended up having Newfoundlands crossed with them in order
to attempt to keep the breed alive after most of them died from some
disease when in the hands of the Bernardian monks who originally bred
them.. that's the reason behind the long haired variety..
in recent years, the reputable Saint Bernard breeders have been doing
their very best to breed a good temperament into them, and have come a
long way..although it would be smart to be careful of where you buy one
if you do, and always, always, check with a dog owner before
approaching, whether it be a Saint or any other type of dog..
heh.. even the 5 month old min pin that was attempting to eat my
mother's black lab at the park a couple weeks ago.. poor thing was
lunging, being very aggressive.. after conversation with the owner, she
and i came to the conclusion that it was partly the pup being
intimidated by larger dogs, and partly caused by her actions when he
behaved in that manner.. a good little pup, but he's going to need work
to avoid fear biting.. :)
firecat
notice it says pit-bull TYPE ? that covers a lot of breeds in those 66
fatalities blamed on pit bulls.. filas, presas, pits, AmStaffs, and a
variety of others.. in reality, during the period of time that report
covers, Rottie and GSD were more prolific biters causing fatalities than
anyone can prove pit bulls were, considering there are so many different
breeds that fall under the vague description of 'pit bull type'
little me
Here's a scenerio for you.
A man goes to a martial arts club so that he can learn how to defend
himself.
He soon earns his Black Belt & is now able to KILL a person in a split
second.
Should he be put to death just because HE IS ABLE TO ???
Yes, he maybe able but that doesn't mean he ever will.
Should he be sentenced to death ?
I'm a firm believer in making the punishment fit the crime ..but if
there was no crime committed, why do you want to punish?