GostHacked Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Yeah but you can own a dog and not have to license it. I certainly don't it's just a money grab. Take it to the vet though. Don't make everyone suffer for a few twits. Deal with the twits. Yes that is what I said, deal with the owners. Hell I need a license just to get married. Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 How are they suffering ? They can buy another dog - a big dog or a little one - or a guinea pig. Problem solved. GostHacked was saying that the problem is with the owner. Well the only way to solve that is attempt to ensure all owners are responsible. IOW license them. How about NO! You can't even get people to license dogs or cats. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 GostHacked was saying that the problem is with the owner. Well the only way to solve that is attempt to ensure all owners are responsible. IOW license them. How about NO! You can't even get people to license dogs or cats. Do you blame the weapon or do you blame the person in possession of that weapon? Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Inorder to enforce licensing of dogs and cats for that matter animal control staff would have to be increased exponentially. Who's paying for that? Not me I hope. Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 I blame the person for breeding such a dog. They should be charged for wanting, owning AND breeding such a dog. Quote
eyeball Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Licence fees. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) Licence fees. Municipalities already have license fees. They aren't enforced, nor should they be. And they aren't meant to ensure responsible dog ownership, they're a tax grab. There are solutions, but neither would be popular. (Could have people go door to door collecting or making vets collect) AND it's not solving a problem. Why make an owner a small dog pay because other people own dangerous dogs. Edited April 28, 2014 by Boges Quote
GostHacked Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Inorder to enforce licensing of dogs and cats for that matter animal control staff would have to be increased exponentially. Who's paying for that? Not me I hope. You will(if implemented), just as we did for the now scrapped long gun registry. A license won't solve anything, and a ban won't solve anything. What are your opinions on Husky's?? Dangerous? Quote
eyeball Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Municipalities already have license fees. They aren't enforced, nor should they be. And they aren't meant to ensure responsible dog ownership, they're a tax grab. So make it about responsibility. Require owners also take out insurance. How will people learn to take dog ownership seriously if the authorities don't? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 You will(if implemented), just as we did for the now scrapped long gun registry. A license won't solve anything, and a ban won't solve anything. What are your opinions on Husky's?? Dangerous? The Long Gun Registry was so popular wasn't it? Do number bare out that they are? I see I'm going to be repeating myself in this thread a lot. Provide numbers that show that other dogs are proportionally dangerously biting people. I provided number for Pit Bulls. The Ban isn't a 100% solution. I see two dogs in my complex that look like Pitt Bulls to me, I'm not going to taddle but I avoid those dogs whenever I'm out with mine. Quote
Bryan Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 People aren't pulling these opinions on Pit Bulls out of their Asses. For the most part they are. Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 So make it about responsibility. Require owners also take out insurance. How will people learn to take dog ownership seriously if the authorities don't? Because the vast majority of dog owners ARE responsible. We're talking massive increases to bureaucracy and taxation just to solve the problem that a breed ban seems to be doing alright at. Enforcing people to get insurance? So we're treating dogs like cars now. GOD I hope not. Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 For the most part they are. Alright well I look forward to some citing. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Alright well I look forward to some citing. From personal experience, I've had more positive experiences with pibtulls than not. You may just be buying into the hype about the animal. You may find that those two pitbulls you are avoiding are very friendly. But the fear prevents you from doing so. Going back to getting bit by small dogs, or any dog for that matter. Hope the animal has had a rabies shot. Dying of rabies is not a very nice way to go. Even house cats that do not encounter any other animals get the rabies shot. I think the fear of these dogs are disproportionate to dog attacks in general. Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) Perhaps you missed it the first time. I'll post again. http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/8-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf Responsible dog owners do get rabies shots annually. As well as heartworm medication. More because those are investments in the dog's ongoing health and not to prevent the dog from infecting someone else. I'm just uneasy having a government agency enforcing it. Personally if I had my choice of legislation to remove harmful breeding habits it would be banning the purebred breeding of unhealthy mutants like the Pug, Bull Dog, Shar Pei, etc. Edited April 28, 2014 by Boges Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Okay... most pit bulls are nice. Meaning ? Only up to 49% of them will try to rip your throat out. I'm not interested. They're a sort of thug accessory from what I can see. Nobody is hurt by banning them, and if one kid is saved every few years then that's a win for me. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) Because the vast majority of dog owners ARE responsible. We're talking massive increases to bureaucracy and taxation just to solve the problem that a breed ban seems to be doing alright at. Enforcing people to get insurance? So we're treating dogs like cars now. GOD I hope not. I can only imagine the horror show that a bureaucracy charged with rounding up dogs to be destroyed would look like.I wonder how many people would resist with their unregistered guns? Edited April 28, 2014 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
PIK Posted April 28, 2014 Author Report Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) You agree with my stance that it is part of the environment and purpose that these dogs are being raised for. As I said I know some pitbulls that are quite friendly and docile. It's not the dog's fault that they are raised in a specific environment. You are more likely to get bit by smaller yappy dogs than a pitbull. Any dog can be made to be aggressive with the intent to cause harm. The dogs are not the problem. Friendly and docile,untill they rip a babies face off. They were raised to kill, not baby sit. What this poor child will have to endure for the rest of her life and people still are defending the dog. The only people that own these dogs are thugs and idiots. Pathetic. Edited April 28, 2014 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
guyser Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 The only people that own these dogs are thugs and idiots. Pathetic.Let me guess. You own 2 ? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa+toddler+disfigured+bull/9780902/story.html To many times we read about this one type of dog. Then stop reading about that one type of dog. Perhaps you should read some articles from veterinarians, dog breeders, and animal associations, instead of the narrow scope of media that relies on sensationalism to sell papers and web access. Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Then stop reading about that one type of dog. Perhaps you should read some articles from veterinarians, dog breeders, and animal associations, instead of the narrow scope of media that relies on sensationalism to sell papers and web access. What about statistics that show Pit Bulls account for a far higher rate of serious bites than any other dog especially considering the instances people own one? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 No, ban the breed. If irresponsible owners are turning their dogs into monsters, and banning the breed will end that practice then why not ? It's not like the dogs will feel unfulfilled in not having puppies, and the owners can buy poodles.How does banning a breed stop irresponsible owners from turning their dogs into monsters? They'll just turn another breed into a monster. The worst are small dogs. People think they're harmless, so they don't correct aggressive behaviours in them. Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) How does banning a breed stop irresponsible owners from turning their dogs into monsters? They'll just turn another breed into a monster. The worst are small dogs. People think they're harmless, so they don't correct aggressive behaviours in them. Yeah those vicious Yorkies! Can't be around them. You ban the breed because they've had dangerous qualities bred into them. It's irresponsible to continue breeding an animal that is so unpredictable and dangerous. Generally humans have bred dogs that have a benefit to society or the lives of people. Dogs that perform a task etc. But since we don't need them now humans have gone to breeding dogs for appearance with some horrific results. See the British Bull Dog. http://www.full-stop.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/british-bulldog.jpg Now humans also bred dogs for fighting purposes, for whatever reason. What's the point of continuing such breeding practices? And when those practices can actually be targeted as posing a public health risk, banning breeding of that dog is a reasonable response. Now other dogs bite but not in the frequency and result of the Pit Bull. Edited April 28, 2014 by Boges Quote
cybercoma Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 Perhaps but when they do get aggressive they tend to clamp down and not let go. I'm not blaming the dog, I'm blaming the twits that see it as their God-given right to own a dog that was bred for fighting. These kind of hysterics amuse me, considering some of the world's most famous pits. Petey from The Little Rascals Nipper, The RCA Dog from 'His Master's Voice' Sgt. Stubby, the WWI war hero Pit bulls weren't always conceptualized as this killer breed. It's a rather recent phenomenon that experts time and again have said is a problem with poor owners, as opposed to the breed itself. Quote
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) You've just posted 3 pictures of puppies, that doesn't bolster your opinion at all. Look there is literature supporting both sides of this issue on the net. But the truth is, Humans have done this breed a disservice and bare the responsibility for the breed's fate. Here's a recent column in a Canadian newspaper about the Pit Bull. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/28/barbara-kay-if-you-can-only-love-a-pit-bull-you-dont-really-love-dogs/ Most people are unaware of how inherently dangerous pit bulls are, because they tend to ravage or kill other animals far more frequently than humans. In 2013 North American pit bulls killed 43,000 companion and domestic animals, including cows and horses, which gives you an idea of their fearlessness and brute power. That their human victims “only” number in the hundreds should not give them a pass. Before the dramatic escalation in pit bull numbers in recent decades, any dogbite-related human fatality was virtually unheard-of. Blah Blah it's written by Barbara Kay. I'll continue posting evidence if you all want. It's not that they necessarily bite more than other dogs, it's when they do the results are far more serious. Edited April 28, 2014 by Boges Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.