• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,201 Revered

About KFBR392

  • Rank
    Canucks Rookie

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,324 profile views
  1. He looks really healthy. Good for him. I wish him all the best.
  2. 6 pages of people discussing 2 completely random photos taken at random times. Not the greatest evidence for such a discussion.
  3. There's a good documentary called "The Champions" on Netflix about the vick dogs. Definitely worth a watch.
  4. You're one of the resident elders around here, so I guess you can be given a bit of slack... but if you have to ask why someone would own a particular kind of dog, then you're probably not equipped to be able to handle the answer. There comes a point where the ignorance of people is no longer funny. Go borrow a pitbull for a weekend and see how well it protects your house. As a matter of fact, leave your valuables out and let me know what day you're doing this on.
  5. I'm not sure if this dude is a troll, or if he's legitimately as ignorant as he's coming across as... but either way, welcome to my ignore list.
  6. It's just outrageous to me that people feel the difference between a pitbull attack vs many other large breeds (German Shepherd, mastiff, rottweiler etc) is significant enough to allow one over the other. I've seen people argue about "gameness", tenacity and the underlying desire for a pitbull to "fight to the death", but most of that is unsubstantiated bs. The abilities of the average, docile pitbull is not significantly more substantial than many other breed of dog. If you're going to argue these rules against all large breed capable of inflicting damage, I'd be more inclined to agree with it.
  7. Who said anything about agenda? A vicious pitbull story will attract more viewers/readers compared to a story about a vicious lab attack. It's sensationalism. Really? Did I really have to spell that out for you?
  8. While it may not necessarily be your responsibility, I feel it's incredibly irresponsible for any person to allow their child and/or their dog to interact with another dog that's physically capable of inflicting damage upon them without paying attention to what's going on. Why would you allow that? You're just going to assume the other dog owner is more responsible than you and will control the situation for you? I think what you're referring to is more geared towards unstable dogs. If you're dealing with an unstable dog, the owner shouldn't be putting them in situations like this. But do you really feel that all (or even most) attacks are the result of an unstable dog? Some are, sure. But most probably aren't. Good dogs act like dogs sometimes. That's why it's key to read the situations as best you can whether it's your responsibility or not. A group of 10 kids could corner the friendliest of dogs, and eventually that dog will respond. Does that make it an unstable dog, or a dog that was put into a position where it felt it had to act on instinct? I probably see this perspective more than you do because I'm on the other side of the fence. I'm the guy who ends up with an "unstable, aggressive" pitbull when my dog defends itself when its the victim of an unprovoked attack by a poorly behaved dog. Dog attacks usually aren't as black and white as you think, and they're definitely not as black and white as you hear on the 5 o'clock news.
  9. Your experience is you experience. I get that. Your entitled to form whatever opinion you want. My current pitbull is 5 years old. Through our walks over the years she's encountered hundreds of dogs. Almost every time I walk her, I have at least one dog act aggressively towards her. Whether it's aggressive barking, lunging or a full fledged charge, I've seen it all. None of those dogs have ever been pitbulls. They've been every kind of imaginable breed or mutt you can think of except pitbulls. So forming an opinion based of my experience, should I conclude that every breed of dog is aggressive with the exception of pitbulls? That wouldn't be very rational of me. I'm not saying pitbulls don't have a history. They most certainly do. They're capable of extreme damage, just like dozens of other dogs are. But they're are also one of the most over bred, abused, neglected and misunderstood breeds in existence. On top of that there's an entire culture built on fearing them that's perpetuated through the media on a daily basis. I question the rationale of any person who fears them exclusively without looking at the bigger picture. But that's another conversation entirely.
  10. Much of what you're saying here, I agree with. But how often do you honestly think a "dangerous dog" lashes out for absolutely no reason? Unless the dog itself is incredibly unstable, chances are there was a reason for it lashing out. And I can assure you that the reason is not because it was born as a pitbull. The dog probably gave a warning sign that nobody noticed. Who's fault is that? I don't know. You be the judge. But at that moment the breed doesn't really matter much. The size and strength of the dog is going to dictate the outcome. So why are we just targeting pitbulls at that point? Apply whatever rules you're suggesting to any large breed dog capable of inflicting damage. Thinking your going to make a difference by targeting a single breed is borderline insane.
  11. I'm not even going to bother arguing that ridiculously misinformed statement, but I understand the underlying concern of your post. I'm just amazed that some of you would consider these actions against one breed specifically as sufficient. If you're going to take a stand against dangerous dogs, do it in a way that doesn't make you look like a sheltered fear monger. That's all I ask. Any large breed dog can kill your child if it wants to. It's up to you to keep your child safe, and it's up to the dog owner to manage the dogs surroundings. If either side fails, someone will eventually be "attacked, maimed and even killed".
  12. Bad things will always happen. We're talking about animals here. Animals that will respond to situations on a primal level. We're also talking about the vast majority of people who don't understand that, let alone know how to read and diffuse one of those situations before it happens. If you think what we're discussing here is going to discourage a 120lb dog from biting a 2 year old that's poking it in the eye while their parents are in the other room, I've got some news for you. It's not going to make a difference. A huge portion of dog bites towards humans are essentially unavoidable when most of the people involved have no idea how a dog functions on a basic level. They've been "humanized" to such a ridiculous extent that people act surprised when a dog acts like a dog.
  13. If only it was that easy? I think much of it boils down to reporting bad owners and enforcing stiffer penalties when bad things happen. The basic idea in the op is a good idea. If your dog is deemed "dangerous" and is labelled as such, new rules and enforcement should then apply to those individuals.
  14. Comparing a statistically peaceful breed to the danger that a firearm possess is a little far fetched to me.. but I understand your underlying point. I'd be in favour of training courses being required for any large breed ownership. Similar to the pal/rpal. That to me makes more sense if we're actually talking about promoting responsible ownership for all breeds. It's funny though, seeing so many of you talking specifically about certain bad apple owners and their dogs. Those are the ones that stick out in your mind, I get that. But think about all the other pitbulls you walk past every day that you don't even notice because they're behaving like normal dogs with normal owners. Those are the people who are most impacted by the irrational and unfair bylaws and stigmas that many of you are peddling.
  15. It is absolutley profiling if you're just targeting pitbull owners. I know this whole segment of the discussion is hypothetical and ultimately ridiculous and would never come close to being introduced, but if you're going to talk about it you may as well include all powerful dog breeds in the discussion. But how does that look and how is that enforced? There are literally dozens of breeds that have been used for protection, hunting, and attack animals. There are even more that possess the physical traits to kill an animal or human. But It's a lot simpler if you're just profiling the most unfairly notorious subset of a much bigger problem, isn't it? The one constant in this thread is ensuring responsible dog ownership. What we're discussing now does nothing to insure that, but it instead creates a burden laced with significant financial penalty for the 90% of us that are already doing what we're supposed to be doing. That's not how you fix problems.