Dangerous dogs registry

[Standing_Tall#37]

3 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

Where did you hide the arm she just bit off?

You're going to have to be more specific. As you can see she's a Rednose. So she's busy killing 24/7. 

 

 

 

 

 

* for those who missed the sarcasm the only thing anybody is at risk of is getting licked to death when they're around her.

[Gurn]

So pitbulls can cause more damage if things go wrong and should be banned according to some people. Do these same people support the removal of aircraft that carry more than 4 people at a time, because , well if things go wrong with a 747 there is much more damage than with a Cessna?

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

6 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

This is my 3 month old Slegr, she's sorry that you hate her. 

As a lover of all animals and specifically the Staffordshire terrier breed and the more commonly known Amstaff/pitbull breeds/mixes, I have never known a better breed of dog. The most loyal, loving, protecting breed I have ever had the pleasure of being around.

 

A good friend whose pure bred Staffordshire was know as Brutus had 3 tiny girls hanging off of him daily and was as gentle as a summers breeze with them.

 

I looked after him for years, he was not mine and listened to me as if I was his master. I walked him off leash and he walked next to me obediently after a few incidents of me yelling at the top of my lungs for him to"stay" as he loved to cross the alley way intersections without me. 3 times is all it took then he never ventured more than 50 feet or he new the leash was back on and we were going home.

 

I fell in love with this breed so much i started to contact breeders world wide.  The one thing i found to be the most interesting is that many of these breeders once they chose these particular dogs they stopped switching and have kept breeding what so many call the most viscous dog in the world.

 

Simply put as with children what you expose them to and how you train them will directly reflect in their behavior. An unsupervised dog's actions are 100% the responsibility of the owner.

 

PS what a beautiful dog : )

 

[Standing_Tall#37]

1 minute ago, Mr.DirtyDangles said:

As lover of all animals and specifically the Staffordshire terrier breed and the more commonly known Amstaff/pitbull breeds/mixes, I have never known a better breed of dog. The most loyal, loving, protecting breed I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.

 

A good friends whose pure bred Staffordshire was know as Brutus had 3 tiny girls hanging off of him daily and was as gentle as a summers breeze with them.

 

I looked after him for years, he was not mine and listened to me as if I was his master. I walked him of leash and he walked next to me obediently after a few incidents of me yelling at the top of my lungs for him to"stay" as he loved to cross the alley way intersections without me. 3 times is all it took then he never ventured more than 50 feet or he new the leash was back on and we were going home.

 

I fell in love with this breed so much i started to contact breeders world wide.  The one thing i found to be the most interesting is that many of these breeders once they chose these particular dogs they stopped switching and have kept breeding what so many call the most viscous dog in the world.

 

Simply put as with children what you expose them to and how you train them will directly reflect in their behavior. An unsupervised dog's actions are 100% the responsibility of the owner.

 

 

My old girl( 11 years old now) walks on my right side. The new girl in the pic walks on my left side.  I find them easy to train and playful and energetic. Also they both "tuck" my kids into bed every night. 

 

 I find they're great to have around children as they were originally called Nanny dogs. I've never had a bad experience with a pitty. Although I've seen huskies bite children on the fave unexpectedly and been bit by poodles and jack Russell's when petting them.

 

 I think it's really only chicken$&!# people or people that are to dumb to know how to train a dog or have never been around a pitty that would want the breed exterminated. I mean this type of thinking is along the same lines as Japanese internment in ww2 or residential schools for the aboriginals. 

 I'm not saying that there's not bad ones and they and their owners should probably be put down. But 99.9% of the breed are sweet and well behaved. They shouldn't have to pay the price for the cull % of the breed & people responsible for them.

[Shift-4]

55 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

 

* for those who missed the sarcasm the only thing anybody is at risk of is getting licked to death when they're around her.

My mutt would gladly challenge any dog in that competition.

I have no idea why she thinks I need all that slobber!  

[elvis15]

9 hours ago, Slegr said:

People who say owners are the problem are not off base, but guess what? Guns themselves aren't problems either, it's owners there too. In Canada, we place more emphasis on the accessibility to guns than the US though because it eliminates the potential. 

Sure some dogs of dangerous breeds are seemingly harmless, but others are not. And the way they are genetically built is far different than a Chihuahua. Their jaws lock if they get a hold of you, and the only way to release is have their eyes gored out. There are lots of less harmful types of dogs / breeds. Why not reduce the risk of extreme harm and have them grandfathered out? People always say it's the owners fault, but no owners ever own up to being the problem. 

 

If you could have followed up your original comment with an even worse one, this would be it. Sure, compare dogs to guns, when dogs have a significant primary role far, far different from anything you could describe for a gun.

 

Of course, if you were intelligent about the issue, you'd realize that the bad owners will find another breed to destroy the reputation of if pit bulls specifically are bred out or banned. Next it would be rottweilers, or mastiffs, or whatever they thought was best. They'll continue to use dogs for fighting, or just be generally bad owners and not socialize or train their dogs and cause these types of attacks and issues, and it won't matter if all that's left is having them put two cocker spaniels in the ring (who do bite a fair bit) for their amusement.

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

If you could have followed up your original comment with an even worse one, this would be it. Sure, compare dogs to guns, when dogs have a significant primary role far, far different from anything you could describe for a gun.

 

Of course, if you were intelligent about the issue, you'd realize that the bad owners will find another breed to destroy the reputation of if pit bulls specifically are bred out or banned. Next it would be rottweilers, or mastiffs, or whatever they thought was best. They'll continue to use dogs for fighting, or just be generally bad owners and not socialize or train their dogs and cause these types of attacks and issues, and it won't matter if all that's left is having them put two cocker spaniels in the ring (who do bite a fair bit) for their amusement.

 

people can be the worst of the worst.  Taking advantage of anyone or any living thing for one's pleasure is friggin' disgusting.  I wonder if 100 years from now, our view of animals will be improved?  

I think I read somewhere that (during the times on the Wild West) harming a horse - yours included - without justification was a hanging offence.  

[Green Building]

45 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

If you could have followed up your original comment with an even worse one, this would be it. Sure, compare dogs to guns, when dogs have a significant primary role far, far different from anything you could describe for a gun.

 

Of course, if you were intelligent about the issue, you'd realize that the bad owners will find another breed to destroy the reputation of if pit bulls specifically are bred out or banned. Next it would be rottweilers, or mastiffs, or whatever they thought was best. They'll continue to use dogs for fighting, or just be generally bad owners and not socialize or train their dogs and cause these types of attacks and issues, and it won't matter if all that's left is having them put two cocker spaniels in the ring (who do bite a fair bit) for their amusement.

Hence my original point of removing the owner from the animal, and not the animal from existence. 

[stawns]

10 hours ago, kloubek said:

Me too.  And I'd go one step further - saying that an owner who has a history of having aggressive animals should be banned from owning them.

 

I have a Staffie, and hate hate hate the bad rap Bully breeds have received from the media.  But with that said, let's face two facts:
 

1) If a Pitbull attacks you, you're going to end up with far more damage than you would, say, a Poodle.  Yet, Poodles are known to be one of the most inherently aggressive dogs around.

2) Some (though certainly not all) Pitbull owners tend to be less than... "savoury" individuals.  They want to look tough, want a dog for protection because they have a history of getting in altercations, or are aggressive individuals who want a weapon at their disposal.  These kinds of people are NOT people who should be allowed to own dogs.  They don't train them properly and they don't love them properly.  An untrained and unloved dog that possesses the strength and jaws of a Pitbull is damage just waiting to happen. 

 

Outright bans on Pitbulls will do nothing but lead these unsavoury people to acquire dogs of a different breed; it's a temporary mask which will not solve anything.  Soon enough, the "breed of the day" for these kinds of people will be a Rottweiler or a German Shepherd.  (I believe both have already had their time as being the "bad breed" in the past).  At this rate, it will take us decades or centuries before we realize that the dogs themselves are not the problem, with BSL and the media doing nothing to get to the crux of the matter, which is owners not taking proper responsibility for their animals.  Until the focus changes to that, we're going to continue to see these bullcrap pieces of legislation which are going to do nothing to solve the actual issue.
 

Actually, this is not true.  Their jaws do NOT lock.  That's a total myth.  You're on a roll of being completely misinformed.  (Which I already assumed when I read your OP)

Yes, there are lots of less harmful types of dogs, and if the decision is to rule out certain breeds because of their damage potential, then while I don't agree with it, I can at least see the logic behind that.  But to focus on Pitbulls specifically is a total waste of time for all.

And you're right, owners don't admit to being the problem.  That's why stiffer legislation needs to be in place to ensure owners are forced to be responsible for their animals.  If you leave the scene of an attack, you will be charged.  If your dog attacks someone, you will be responsible for assault.  Those kinds of rules should certainly make people think twice about going out and getting an animal they don't wish to properly take care of.

 

it's easier just to ban those breeds than try and enforce regulations and restrictions on owners.  governments don't have the resources as that.

 

the numbers paste a pretty clear picture.

[elvis15]

8 hours ago, riffraff said:

Could people please put a tagged collar on your dog.

 

when I see dogs wandering the street looking lost and about to get run over I always stop.  If there is no tag I can't do anything.

 

simple.

I just got a new tag today I'd ordered recently for one of my chihuahuas. Name and number of course, but the front reads like a medic alert bracelet, and says he's both blind and diabetic. And of course, he's the worst of my three because he's blind (was grouchy to say the least before that even) and will snap and bite at anything that gets close when he doesn't feel safe.

[elvis15]

8 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

You know what you'll never see in the news?

 

SHIH TZU ATTACKS AND INJURES PERSON, SENDING THEM TO HOSPITAL CLINGING TO LIFE. 

 

You can blame the owners all you want. If a "pet" has the ability to kill me or someone else, then no thanks.

You really haven't thought that argument through. For instance, police dogs are all breeds that could seriously injure or kill you. If you want to ban a breed like pit bulls because of that capability, then you'd also have to do so for rottweilers, german shephards, dobermans, etc.

 

Actually, let's take that injure/kill premise a little further. Horses could easily kill you with a kick, so they should be banned as well. Does that fit your argument?

[elvis15]

7 hours ago, Slegr said:

 

One third of Canada's population aren't allowed to own pit bulls. Just as smoking laws take time to be implemented, so to will this. But it will eventually happen.

And a number of areas in France have tried to institute bans on burkinis, which failed when they were overturned. How widespread a law is doesn't mean it's appropriate or even successful.

[elvis15]

26 minutes ago, Green Building said:

Hence my original point of removing the owner from the animal, and not the animal from existence. 

The only sensible solution, really. It's too bad that having one dog mistreated to the point that it becomes a danger is the only way to figure that out, but we have to do something to keep other dogs from being mistreated.

 

But that was my first thought when reading the OP - don't we already have animal cruelty laws and the like where we can identify situations where people should be banned from owning animals altogether or certainly restricted based on their previous history? And aren't attacks already recorded (when they're reported at least)? So why do we need a registry, even if it's more appropriately applied regardless of breed?

[elvis15]

10 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

I'm all for banning pitbulls and the white trash that defends the breed.

Like this piece of white trash?

 

http://www.goodpitbulls.com/blog/celebrity-have-pit-bull/jon-stewart-pit-bulls/

Quote

Jon Stewart is best known for his part on The Daily Show, but he’s a huge dog lover. He’s even gone on record saying, “pit bulls are very nice dogs.” Well, it’s great he says that considering he has three rescued pit bulls- Shamsky, Monkey and Champ.

Stewart is a huge animal person. In 2013, he chaired the Animal Haven’s Third Annual Performance for the Animals.  His family also went above and beyond it help raise funds and awareness.

One day, when Steward started helping Animal Haven, he visited one of the shelters where his children were volunteering. Well, he was so moved and inspired by the organization, he adopted a three-legged pit bull named Champ. He’s been quoted saying, “It was a good move on Animal Haven’s part…They put him right next to me and I was like, yeah, this is our dog now.’” Champ gets loads of attention, even making appearances on The Daily Show.

Shamsky is another awesome Pit Bull rescue that Stewart and his wife adopted before Champ. Shamskey was an agoraphobic pit bull who lived in a small cage; after the Stewart’s adopted him, he slowly came out of his fear. Shamsky was named after the only Jewish member of the 1969 “Miracle Mets.”

...

 

Are you a Tom Brady fan?

http://www.goodpitbulls.com/blog/celebrity-have-pit-bull/tom-brady-pit-bull-lua/

 

How about Jennifer Aniston?

http://www.goodpitbulls.com/blog/celebrity-have-pit-bull/jennifer-aniston-sophie/

 

Tell this piece of 'white trash' he's wrong:

http://www.goodpitbulls.com/blog/celebrity-have-pit-bull/danny-trejo-dog-lover/

[Slegr]

Elvis, it looks like we may have hit a nerve with you.  For all the cute puppy pictures, here's a video to match, if you dare to watch it. Blame the owners all you want. Most of the thousands of dog breeds aren't possible of this kind of hurt on humans. There is no justifiable reason to own one of these creatures when there are thousands of other breeds to choose from.

 

 

[Slegr]

More? 

 

[elvis15]

Aaaaaaaannnnnnd, you've just ignored any of the very salient points I've made and said, "here's a sample that clearly denotes how any and all of these dogs will act."

 

I'm going to take my own advice, something I gave to a friend just yesterday:

[riffraff]

1 hour ago, elvis15 said:

I just got a new tag today I'd ordered recently for one of my chihuahuas. Name and number of course, but the front reads like a medic alert bracelet, and says he's both blind and diabetic. And of course, he's the worst of my three because he's blind (was grouchy to say the least before that even) and will snap and bite at anything that gets close when he doesn't feel safe.

Of course I'm initially cautious when I approach a loose dog.  Most of the thine they are freaked out and are hard to call over. But last time which was about a month a go this little Scotty dog was super friendly and came right over (I actually had to slam the brakes cos he ran right out) he had no tag or collar so all I could do was shoo him off the road. It's tough when that happens.  Always worried.

[Slegr]

I have to admit, I never realized how many places across the world already restrict and /or outright ban pitbulls and other dangerous breeds. This link has a pretty lengthy list:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation 

[riffraff]

21 minutes ago, Slegr said:

Elvis, it looks like we may have hit a nerve with you.  For all the cute puppy pictures, here's a video to match, if you dare to watch it. Blame the owners all you want. Most of the thousands of dog breeds aren't possible of this kind of hurt on humans. There is no justifiable reason to own one of these creatures when there are thousands of other breeds to choose from.

 

 

Pretty crazy how they seem to single one person out and are just relentless.  Also you see how important it is to "be big" stand your ground and counter the aggression.