posted on August 30, 2005 12:17:16 PM
What do you think about banning these dogs? If you own one, it has to be muzzled when outside on a leash and your dog has to be spayed or neutered. Any puppies born before November 11th have to be spayed or neutered and only sold to people that apply to own them. Puppies born after the 11th will be destroyed. Anyone that doesn't obey these laws will have their dog destroyed. No further breeding will be allowed by anyone after that date.
posted on August 30, 2005 02:55:27 PM
I don't get it. Everyone you talk to who owns a Pit Bull owns a big baby, a big sweety, a big old slurpy lovee-dovey lazy dazy who wouldn't hurt the fleas that are biting his butt..but almost everytime a child is shredded into mincemeat by neighborhood dogs, they're Pit Bulls...something wrong with that picture if you ask me.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on August 30, 2005 02:59:02 PM
Tom, I second that round of applause! They have to wear muzzles here, but don't count on the owners obeying that law. No one has a pit bull here that would hurt anyone. But, as the prof says. . . .
posted on August 30, 2005 03:03:05 PM
That owner of the dog, did not train their dog to be people friendly.
Not the dogs fault, owners.
Besides they probably are big "lap" dogs in those familys, but outsiders are a different matter.
I had one that was friendly to everyone, had to work with him for several months. But he came around. I won't have a dog that will bite a human unless I tell it to.
posted on August 30, 2005 03:22:11 PM
I don't get it. Some posters on this board don't like people they call "tree huggers" but they themselves could be called "fur huggers". What's the difference?
posted on August 30, 2005 05:28:25 PM
"I had one that was friendly to everyone, had to work with him for several months. But he came around."
you had to work with a pitbull for several months just to be friendly to people? Whats wrong with this pic??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Golfer:Stop checking your watch all the time,its too much of a distraction.
Caddy:Its not a watch, its a compass
[ edited by classicrock000 on Aug 30, 2005 05:28 PM ]
posted on August 30, 2005 06:04:06 PM
I'll guarantee a quick look at animal control records would show the bites from German Shepards, Huskies, etc would be MANY times the number from Pits adjusted for number of animals. The difference would be the political mileage would be dramatically negative if they took on Rin Tin Tin or Lassie.
posted on August 30, 2005 06:11:20 PM
"I don't get it. Some posters on this board don't like people they call "tree huggers" but they themselves could be called "fur huggers". What's the difference?"
I don't know if you have noticed, but a significant number of "tree huggers" are INCREDIBLY stupid. They subscribe to the theory of "if it sounds right" it is.
For example: If one of these wackos says the gummitt should force everybody to get a "hydrogen car" and you casually mention that while the car wouldn't pollute, the pollution from the production methods to make Hydrogen would yield no gain, they'll say "get new processes to make hydrogen".
posted on August 30, 2005 09:28:10 PMI'll guarantee a quick look at animal control records would show the bites from German Shepards, Huskies, etc would be MANY times the number from Pits adjusted for number of animals. The difference would be the political mileage would be dramatically negative if they took on Rin Tin Tin or Lassie.
Banning Pit Bulls and Rottweilers wouldn't seriously lower the number of dog bites annually, but it would most definitely lower the number of deaths, most of whom are children.
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
I do think though that it would be a short term solution, as the macho types who need big mean dogs to substitute for their penile inadequacy would find other breeds they could mistreat into meanness in no time.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
[ edited by profe51 on Aug 30, 2005 09:28 PM ]
)