onthejourney Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/ in agreement with this myself. All the pitbulls I have met are great big sucks. I wish people would stop raising certain dogs to be so mean. It's horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 pitbulls have the power to kill and therefore should not be available as pets to the general public. i feel the same way about rottwielers. when i was twelve i got bit on the throat by a badly neglected golden labrador. if that dog was a pitbull i would likely be dead right now, instead of have a few tiny scars that only show up when i get a suntan. i love dogs of all kinds but i don't think they all belong in society. you don't see too many pet lions around, and personally i fell that it is a very similar comparison. they are both intelligent and potentially loving animals that have the ability and instinct to kill. it is not thier fault, it's just nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shitidiot Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 I've lived my hole life with American Red Nose Bull Terriers AKA pit bulls and yes there very powerful dog but banning a animal because of stupid owners is WRONG! that attitude is the same one that has seen the down fall of all are powerful animals such as wolves, bears, wild dogs on and on. we have nearly wiped out these animal because of are fear that they will kill are baby's.(not trying to say your story is not very scary. i feel very sorry that that happened to you, bokono) i believe people should be educated more about pets. learn to respect them and give them there space, not to fear them. it's not like people are banning lakes because kids can drown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 I think Friendly should have be allowed to have a pet lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 I think Friendly should have be allowed to have a pet lion. me too! if everyone were like friendly i would think we all should have lions. all i am saying is that pit bulls have their place in nature just like lions and wolves and bears and cougars (tee hee), but i don't think their place is in "society". it's out in whatever habitat is their natural one. when wolves or bears or moose are getting to be too frequent of visitors in suburbia than they are trapped and relocated to a more proper area, better suited to their nature. predators + mere mortals (unlike friendly) = bad times that's all i am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 too bad cougars get vicious (if only in the morning) - ideal pet. they'd be able to go out and hunt down a deer or beaver, bring it back, and we'd feast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onthejourney Posted November 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 unfortunately, most dogs can not just be put back out in the wild as they have been domesticated and will probably not survive very long. I don't think you can really compare a dog to animals that have not been domesticated (nor do i think they should become domesticated)... I agree that people should not have 'exotic' pets such as lions, cougars or even pythons. I am sorry to hear that you were bit. I also have been bit by a german shepherd/rotti. I find german shepherds get a little nippy in their old age. My dog even got nippy (not bitey) in her old age when there were too many people around...in which case you give them their space and more care (as we do with our human elderly)(not to compare them to dogs ...please don't run with that!..u know what i mean) I don't think banning is the answer. Nor do I think all dogs should not be apart of human society. I have found much love and companionship through these animals. It is unfortunate that some are raised to be mean and aggressive. But to bunch them all together as being so is not right. Yes, I am afraid of certain dogs...dobermins being one...but that doesn't mean that there are not perfectly loving ones out there. hopefully there will be something in place to control owner behavior instead of banning breeds of dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickler Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 If we do not ban them, then I think the owner of the pet should be legally liable for any wrong doings. If their pitbul/rotti kill someone. The owner goes on trial for murder. Somethin has to be done. Personally I think banning them is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Strange thing I read somewhere was that German Sheppards have the higest biting rate currently,if I can find the article I read I'll post it. For those (like myself) against the banning check out this link http://www.petitiononline.com/newban2/petition.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 If we do not ban them, then I think the owner of the pet should be legally liable for any wrong doings. If their pitbul/rotti kill someone. The owner goes on trial for murder. Somethin has to be done. Personally I think banning them is the answer. I think that there are some components of the act missing for murder, unless the dog owner instructed or otherwise intentionally caused the dog to kill. The dog owner, however, is liable civilly to compensate the injured party in damages, as long as the dog has shown aggressive behaviour in the past; whether or not the dog has bitten someone before. As well, whoever was in control of the dog at the time of an attack can also be held civilly liable. Further, in almost any judgment of a court awarding damages in such a case, the offending animal is ordered euthanized (on the off chance that the animal had not been euthanized well before trial.) That is the case whether or not the breed is banned. (The law isn't quite as simple as that, but it's pretty close.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogieknight Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 lots of different dogs attack people. discriminating against a breed is pure polictical propaganda/sensationalism. aggressive dogs get that way because that's how the owners have made them. i'v known many different pitbulls and most were as passive as a hippie at an extasy convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickler Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 lots of different dogs attack people. discriminating against a breed is pure polictical propaganda/sensationalism. aggressive dogs get that way because that's how the owners have made them. i'v known many different pitbulls and most were as passive as a hippie at an extasy convention. of coures lots of other dogs attack people. That is not the issue. Its the dogs that have the power to kill you if they attack in question. Not the little ankle bitters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 So ban all big dogs? They all have the potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 My folks have a pit bull and he's the friendliest dog I've ever met- I used to have a serious phobia about dogs after being bitten when young But yeah it's totally true that it's the owners who are responsible for dogs being dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 There are many concerns with banning a breed, the two most significant being: 1. Do you ban a dog that's 1/2 pitbull? 1/4? etc? What if the other half is chihuaha? 2. There have been studies that show that, if you ban any particular breed, dogbites by that breed do go down in numbers, but bites by other breeds rise to the point that it tends to even out. (More evidence that it's owners, not dogs, that are the problem; and as I already said, our law already holds negligent owners responsible; without statutes banning breeds.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 i believe that pit-bulls and rottwielers have a physical difference in their jaw structure that enables them to lock on to whatever they are biting by dislocating their jaw in a way that it is physically impossible to open the dog's mouth by force. ban dogs with this kind of jaw. also, i just want to clarify that i do not advocate putting domesticated dogs back in the wild. that is an absolutely ridiculous idea. my previous post stated that animals have a right to exist, just not in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onthejourney Posted November 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 this isn't meant to sound mean...but what is the opposite of society then?? Would that not be the wild or 'away from society'? I am just trying to understand what you mean with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 i believe that pit-bulls and rottwielers have a physical difference in their jaw structure that enables them to lock on to whatever they are biting by dislocating their jaw in a way that it is physically impossible to open the dog's mouth by force. ban dogs with this kind of jaw. also, i just want to clarify that i do not advocate putting domesticated dogs back in the wild. that is an absolutely ridiculous idea. my previous post stated that animals have a right to exist, just not in society. You may want to check out this site. "Pit Bulls have locking jaws."- There is nothing physiologically different about a Pit Bull's jaws that would distinguish them from the jaws of any other breed. The breed's jaws can't lock any more than a Poodle's can. In fact, there is no animal--domestic or wild--with jaw-locking capability. Pit Bulls do have a lot of jaw-strength, however. The wide jaws allow them to hold onto an object, even dangling mid-air. This is a trait that comes from the bulldog ancestors of the breed. Jaw strength was needed in order for a dog to be proficient at bullbaiting, in which the dog would grab the bull by the nose and hang on until the enraged animal was subdued. http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 this isn't meant to sound mean...but what is the opposite of society then?? Would that not be the wild or 'away from society'? I am just trying to understand what you mean with that. i am not trying to find an opposite of society.i said i agree with the ban on pitbulls as they should not be part of society due to the fact that they are predators with physical ability to kill and the behavioural training to be agressive. they are animals and part of the world and therefore have a right to exist, they just should not be among people in concentrated areas, just like bears and lions and cougars. i really don't know how to make my position any more clear than that. predators + people = problems that's simple arithmetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 esau, the only name on that site was mary something or other and that site has a .com ending, meaning that it is not produced by an organization such as spca or a veterinary school, otherwise it would end in .edu. there is not "about us" page to say who created this site. it is also four years old. this leads me to suspect that this site has no authority and is not very current, therefore should not be considered a very reliable source of information.edit to add: i did a search on mary harwelik. she is a dog trainer that specializes in pit-bulls. if pit-bulls are banned, mary is out of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 esau, the only name on that site was mary something or other and that site has a .com ending, meaning that it is not produced by an organization such as spca or a veterinary school, otherwise it would end in .edu. there is not "about us" page to say who created this site. it is also four years old. this leads me to suspect that this site has no authority and is not very current, therefore should not be considered a very reliable source of information.edit to add: i did a search on mary harwelik. she is a dog trainer that specializes in pit-bulls. if pit-bulls are banned, mary is out of a job. No problen, how about the president of the Connecticut Humane Society? According to the American Canine Temperament Testing Association, 95 percent of the Pit Bulls that took its temperament test passed, compared to a 77 percent passing rate for all breeds on average. Pit Bulls had a passing rate that was the fourth highest of the 122 breeds tested. In fact, Cocker Spaniels, German Shepherds, Chow Chows and Chihuahuas have more reported bites than Pit Bulls. Also, there is no truth to the reports that Pit Bulls have locking jaws and may turn on their owners. The jaws, while indeed strong, have biting mechanisms no different than those of other dogs. http://pages.cthome.net/india2/page70.html In fact just do a google for "pitbull locking jaws",you'll see.Its a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 . i was not debating the jaw-locking ability, i was debating the credibility of your source. this one is better. (i went to the ct humane society website to double check that their president was in fact richard johnson, which it is) about the jaw-locking tendency of pit-bulls, that is just what i have always believed about them. i guess i fell victem to urban myth. pit-bulls still have the ability to kill more than almost any other breed of dog, whether or not their jaws lock. the fact of the matter is that pit bulls can kill. i am not saying all pitbulls will kill. many pitbulls are lovely dogs. i have met some. i have met some that are horrible little things that should bite their owners for making them that way. agressive pitbulls are made that way by their owners. these animals should not be in society. it is impossible to give all pitbulls a personality test, therefore they need to be banned to stop anyone from being killed. same with any animal that is naturally a predator. predator canines almost killed a friend of mine in 2003. she still had open wounds from the dogs when she was at izzy's this year. it is sad that many people are incredibly stupid and train these wonderful animals to be agressive and dangerous. it is sad that many people are incredibly stupid in general, otherwise we would not need to have such draconian laws and we could all live in a wonerful state of lawlessness in an anarchistic, humanistic utopia. but this isn't going to happen so we need laws to keep people from hurting themselves and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Heres the article I mentioned I read earlier in this thread about the most common breeds that bite (amongst many other dog bite issues & facts): -------------------------------------------------------- Trust in dogs may be misplaced: Most people trust the family dog, but a federal study suggests that trust is misplaced. The study finds dogs we know and trust are the worst offenders for bites and attacks on people. According to the study, the most common biters are german shepherds cocker spaniels rottweilers golden retrievers Other than rottweilers, the breeds named are among the most common in Canadian homes. ----------------------------------------------------------- http://www.cbc.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PalacePrincess Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 well see now, that's the thing... like cherry tomatoes and seedless cucumbers and tiny little dogs you can fit into your purse, pitbulls don't even exist in nature. we created them. to kill. i don't doubt for a second that with a loving owner, a pit bull can be raised to be a nice pet. but even with the best love & care in the world, there's always that chance they can freak out & do things akin to their ferocious, horrible nature. like eat your 2 year old next door neighbour. all dogs no matter how nice can snap in a second and attack with the right provocation. the difference is with pitbulls, they're genetically engineered to kill, and they will.i don't know. i agree with this ban. i feel bad for people who are huge pitbull lovers, but i don't think we have any need for them, as bokonon said, in socitey -- there are plenty of dogs to choose from, and if you want a wild mean one, there's still a bunch available.i've met a few pitbulls -- all well cared for, fairly "nice" pets. but i still didn't like them. they seem crazy somehow, like something in their brain doesn't go together properly. i would never own one, and would never want to raise my children next door to someone who has one. heck, i don't even like german shepherds all that much, or rottweilers or dobermans. any "attack" dogs really. there's enough to be scared of today for parents, why add ferocious suburbian man-eating beast to the mix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guigsy Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 i fear these things. whenever i am around one, all i can imagine is this thing latching onto my ballsack. even reading this thread, all i could think was one day a pitbull is going to lock onto my ballsack, and then im really screwed. in general, im pretty indifferent to the banning, but in this regard, im pretty glad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now