Illegal dogs

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:55 pm

Wow, this is one hell of a lot of Daily Mail readers in one forum. Its generally the small yappy dogs that are the vicious little bastards, yorkies, westies etc. Yes a big dog can cause more damage but environment is vital for a dogs temperament and a lot of the vicious big dogs you see are because they have been bought by some sink estate dwelling pikey who thinks it makes him look tough (not easy with a dachshund). With any breed you are going to get some bad ones but nothing can be done about that but I'm usually far more wary around small ratty dogs.
I agree with reaper 100% Shocked

There have been some damned insensitive, knee jerk reactionary and frankly fu%^&ng stupid comments in this thread. Every time you see little Jonny who's been savaged there is a possibility that he was actually tormenting the dog, just as owners should control their dogs, parents should control their kids.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:01 pm

Maybe Newdonym's choice of analogy is better to avoid confusion.

And I personally would like to see drug dealers and the criminally stupid and unstable permanently banned from owning any animal anyway, so that would address that part of the problem anyway...

Quote:

If you want to be safe, then you have to illegalize all large dogs.

Ahh, but even if you wiped large dogs off the planet, the success would be short-lived, because someone would immediately come along and start breeding the largest of the small ones until they created a new large one--or they would breed more strength into a smaller dog, or even start over with wolves.

edit:

Quote:

I'm usually far more wary around small ratty dogs.

I agree. When I get to work tonight, I'll probably hug a couple of pitties and play with my favorite one (and then pry her mouth open to take away the toy she'll try to walk off with to shred), but I'll be watching out with those little ankle-biters Very Happy

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:03 pm

The difference between cars or guns and dogs is that the former are entirely inanimate without a human to operate them, and cannot be bred or trained to do anything, good or bad. With a dog, there is always going to be an element of unpredictability regardless of training and standard of handling, and in the case of pitbulls we are not talking about a largely responsible pool of owners. If an SUV left to its own devices was potentially going to injure someone however well it was driven, or if left alone and unattended could get out and injure someone by itself, then yes, larger cars probably would be subject to greater control. And if SUVs were capable of that and largely owned by people who were irresponsible, there'd be an even stronger case for controls.

jojo, I don't expect to be completely safe. I do expect the state to weigh the risks and determine whether the right to be protected from harm outweighs the benefits of people being able to own such dogs and reach a sensible conclusion, and I am happy with the position as it stands right now.

Rodus wrote:

a lot of the vicious big dogs you see are because they have been bought by some sink estate dwelling pikey who thinks it makes him look tough (not easy with a dachshund). With any breed you are going to get some bad ones but nothing can be done about that

This point is being made over and over, but I am damned if I can see how it does anything but strengthen the argument for banning the ownership of such dogs.

Rodus wrote:

Wow, this is one hell of a lot of Daily Mail readers in one forum.

Can you play the ball and not the man, please.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:18 pm

Eight wrote:

Rodus wrote:

a lot of the vicious big dogs you see are because they have been bought by some sink estate dwelling pikey who thinks it makes him look tough (not easy with a dachshund). With any breed you are going to get some bad ones but nothing can be done about that

This point is being made over and over, but I am damned if I can see how it does anything but strengthen the argument for banning the ownership of such dogs.

I think that he is saying, if it's not these dogs, then something else that will be just as dangerous. That's the argument I see. I mean, they are dogs. How many people really die a year from dogs? Just curious.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:18 pm

Quote:

The difference between cars or guns and dogs is that the former are entirely inanimate without a human to operate them.

True, but just like pitbulls who appeal to certain parts of the criminal element, those SUV's appeal to certain idiotic macho personalities. Every winter, I see a whole lot of accidents caused by idiot SUV owners who think their big 4 wheel drive vehicle (that they bought because like the pitbull, it enhances their "macho" image) means they are invincible and can speed through the snow and ice in the un-plowed lane. And those idiots have put my life in danger more than once.

At least with a small car, they'd just get stuck in the snow and the rest of us would be safer. But I'd still go after the owner, not the car.

Edit: Jojo, in answer to your question--

From the well-researched book "Dogs Bite: But Balloons and and Slippers are more dangerous:

Quote:

"Dogs almost never kill people. A child is more likely to die choking on a marble or a balloon, and an adult is more likely to die in a bedroom slipper related accident'.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:22 pm

@Eight, it doesn't cause an argument for banning such dogs, merely stopping sink estate dwelling pikeys from owning them. Dog owners should have to have a license, their homes checked out etc to see if they are fit and suitable to own such an animal. Do this and I can guarantee the number of dog attacks will go right down.

edited for certain comments

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:24 pm

I solve this problem by drowning puppies and kittens before they can get too big. I am siding with Rodus, Peaps, Jojo, and Dorothy on this one. It is the owner more than the dog.

Chuck Norris Joined: 11 Jun 2007 Posts: 1369

Quote:

n I get to work tonight, I'll probably hug a couple of pitties and play with my favorite one (and then pry her mouth open to take away the toy she'll try to walk off with to shred), but I'll be watching out with those little ankle-biters.

That's so cool. I always seem to have neighbors that have some breed of pitbull. One neighbor of mine, a family, even bred them--mostly Staffordshires. Amazingly enough, I just came back in from playing with a neighbor's pit--this particular one being an American Pit Bull Terrier. We played fetch with a tennis ball, mostly. Smile

On the other hand, there was a sad story near where I live recently--a man was walking his six month old pit bitch, and he was approached by two men, who at first acted nice and just pet the dog. They then punched him in the face several times and stole her. They are no doubt probably going to try to use her for fighting, as they did make a comment that she'd "probably make a good fighting dog" before punching the owner in the face. THOSE are the types of animals I would like to go after. Evil or Very Mad

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:32 pm

Rodus wrote:

Dog owners should have to have... their homes checked out etc to see if they are fit and suitable to own such an animal.

Fair point to a degree, but having a nice, tidy house does not guarantee the mental state, training ability or responsibilty level / attitude of a potential dog owner.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:34 pm

Rodus wrote:

As for the daily mail comment, with some of the comments here I stand by it.

In which case, I choose not to participate further.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:38 pm

^^If I've offended I retract the comment then. I meant it more as a generalization then any targeted attack, certainly not against any one person and I apologize if i've offended anyone else.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:01 pm

Hmmm rabid jack russels! That's a scary thought considering the one my mom owns has ADHD or is secretly drinking purified caffeine syrup! The hyper bugger makes a great alarm clock in the morning though.

On to bigger breeds, I am at college and had to leave my German shepherd at home. While he is a bigger breed, and has attacked a home intruder on command once before, a dog will react based off of it's training and environment. Sure, take the big dog out for an evening stroll, you'll want to restrain it properly. If it gets off your property and starts causing mayhem, it's fair game to any restraining action required. While it'd break my heart to have to restrain my German, I'd do it if he got out of control in a necessary manner. There's s difference between responsible dog owners and irresponsible ones. I think the OP is a responsible owner, but still breaking the law is rather questionable. Confused

My $0.02

419Eater is my life Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 365

@jojo

Granted that 6 of those times it was in a bad neighborhood and 4 of those was while the owner was present. I had my pistol drawn, telling the owner to call the animal off and they refused. 2 of those times was trying to serve a search warrant.
The shepard was in a nice neighborhood and I was responding to a burglary in progress call. No one ever claimed the animal, so to this day I don't know who it belonged to. This is 7 dogs over a span of 20 years. We have no leash law in our Parish here in Louisiana. When I first got into Law Enforcement, one of the standing rules of the Sheriff was not to get dog bit so I wasn't the only one that was shooting dogs that was attacking. As long as the Officer could justify shooting the attacking dog, the Sheriff was willing to face a lawsuit than see one of his Officers get hurt.
A friend of mine lost just about everything he had in a lawsuit due to the fact that one of his dogs bit a child. I like dogs but I don't own any. Neither my wife or I have the time to properly take care of a pet, and I know that I couldn't rely on my children to do so. I like going out into my yard without stepping in a big pile of dog poo but it does happen because some neighbors dog came over to my yard to take a crap. This is why I keep the BB gun cocked and locked. Control your animal and we won't have a problem. Keep them out of my yard and we won't have a problem.
Now, as the Chief of Police, if your animal becomes a nuisance, I'll just serve you with the paperwork giving you 48 hours to remove the animal from the corporate limits or we will seize the animal and have it removed.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:36 pm

Chief2B wrote:

Granted that 6 of those times it was in a bad neighborhood

That was my point.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:00 pm

We have idiots in the US who keep poisonous snakes as pets.
Like Rattlesnakes and Cobras.

Apparently that is more "macho" than keeping pit bulls.

A firefighter recently died after he was bitten by one of his "pets",
an African Rhinoceros Viper.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:02 pm

I'm glad the puppy is feeling better (tho personally I could have done without the details about his bowel ICK). Very Happy

I <3 all dogs including pitts. I think they are sweet & cute, but of course they have the capability of being aggressive and some have become vicious and deadly. So do all animals. I think the laws outlawing them are a bit, well, retarded. Like a lot of things like that, they are knee-jerk reactions, which tend to be rife with misinformation and ignorance and lead to a bunch of unintended consequences. Such as the dog owner potentially neglecting the health of the animal for fear of the repercussions of having the dog. Imagine if an owner who loves his dog like a son (!!!) considers not taking the dog to the vet what happens to the other dogs who aren't fortuante to have such owners?

The logic behind these laws is stupid. It's like saying rape is a major problem, men make up less than half of the population but virtually 99.999% of the problem, therefore men need to be outlawed. There are certainly way more rapes occurring than dog attacks. Rape is more vicious and brutal than a dog mauling and is perpetrated almost excusively by men. Yet for some odd reason, we don't outlaw men. Frankly we don't know when a man will snap or what will set him off and to paraphrase one poster, men just should not be allowed in our society. It's obvious men are more dangerous than pitts. Men have the ability to reason and they know the consequenses of their actions, yet still they become violently aggressive & predatory for no reason & without provocation. I find that scarier than the remote possibility of a pitt suddenly going beserk out of the blue & unprovoked. If there is a ban on pitts for becoming suddenly aggressive and potentially deadly, then there should be a similar ban on the male population. There were almost 94,000 reported forcible rapes in the US in 2005, & remember that rape only has reporting rate of about 16%...now tell me again how many dog attacks did we have?

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:17 pm

@Scambo - Eric is lucky he found you. He could have very easily ran into someone with the like opinion of many on this board. If that were the case I don't think he would have survived. Not because he was sweet nor because he was mean but because he was a pitt Sad

Unfortunately, there are going to be those who think pit bull bad, vicious, blood lust, fleas, small children have it put down. I don't know why, I think maybe it's just fear and ignorance. Honestly, it appears that kind of fear and ignorance is still acceptable and even encouraged. How can you blame people with the media and all. People want to be safe so there are those who just want to close off any hint of danger. I don't blame them.

I guess my wife is just lucky to have survived the hundreds of pit bulls she was around and played with all her life. I mean really what are the odds?

But really scambo you should have seen this coming when you started this thread Smile

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:55 pm

Ghost wrote:

Unfortunately, there are going to be those who think pit bull bad, vicious, blood lust, fleas, small children have it put down. I don't know why, I think maybe it's just fear and ignorance.

No Ghost it isn't based upon ignorance, fear or media hysteria.
If that is your belief, then I am afraid that it is you that is clinging onto blind ignorance.

I spent 5 years working very closely with Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital, and St Andrew's burns unit in Billericay, specifically with children that required cosmetic reconstruction surgery for facial disfigurement.

Primarily the department was catering for children that had suffered birth defects such as cleft lip and palate, but it was also geared towards burns victims and other children that had been horrifically disfigured.

Barely a day went by, without at least one or two children being admitted for horrendous injuries caused by a pit bull or similar dog.

Children with fist sized chunks torn from their leg or their arm were being brought in day after day after day.

These stories rarely or never reach the newspapers because they are so frequent and presumably deemed not sensational enough.
The only time these stories hit the headlines is when a child has been killed or lost half of their face.

Have my experiences shaped my judgement?
You bet they have.

Frankly if it were up to me I would round up every last one of these dogs and burn the fucking lot.....!!

EDIT TO ADD: I will not view this thread again or I will really lose my control.... Evil or Very Mad

Chuck Norris Joined: 11 Jun 2007 Posts: 1369

The French lady who had the world's first partial facial transplant was horribly disfigured by a dog. This is why she required such a transplant.

Was it one of those terrible, awful, scourge-upon-the-world pitbull breeds?

It was a Labrador Retriever.

Quote:

Mrs Dinoire lost her nose, both lips and her chin after she was mauled by her pet Labrador while she slept in June last year. The dog was later put down, against the family's wishes.

Burn the whole fugging lot I say.

Master Baiter Joined: 09 Apr 2008 Posts: 114

We hear lots of stories these days about gangs of "hoodies" terrorising and even murdering people for the slightest of things. Perhaps, just to keep my Gran safe, we should round up every one of the little bastards and execute them.

Parent - "Oh, not my son."

Judge - "He's a hoodie and deserves to die. It's only a matter of time until he kills."

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:21 am

While the dogs obviously have certain personaity traits,in the end it is the owners fault.I used to work in an area where having an agressive dog was like a required fashion accessory.I hated it.It really is a ridiculous macho extention.My dog is bad therefore am too-bullshit.Agressive breed should be discourged,but can be OK if brought uo properly.A close friend used to be a veterinary technician,and one day she brought home a doggy.A Rotweiler.If my eyesight is any judge,the largest Rottweiler on record.I was sitting on her couch,and she wanted me to meet her new
doggie.She let him out of the rooom,and I saw a head the size of a beach ball,with apropriate sized teeth running at me at full speed.The damn thing landed in the middle of my chest,and proceded to lick my face off.Fine ,he was nice in spite of the abuse,but in the end it realy is the people.

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:22 am

Simba wrote:

it isn't based upon ignorance...
Frankly if it were up to me I would round up every last one of these dogs and burn the fucking lot.....!!

Fortunately, it's not up to you.

This is just were our experience and beliefs differ my man. I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I don't like or want to fight with anyone. I understand why people feel the way they do. I'm just saying I think they are wrong just like you think I am wrong.

I just really think it's bad and yes ignorant to want to kill something based solely on what it is. Your not going to change my mind just like I am not going to change yours.

We can still be friends Smile

What if we lived in a world where people with foil hats were rounded up and killed. We all would be dead Laughing

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:22 am

Quote:

Burn the whole fugging lot I say.

Yep kill all cows too, cause I have some bad scars from those too, all horses as my neighbor is for ever mutilated by one of those vicious animals, all aggressive deer as my aunt can't miss them while driving and they do come in the front window then and all bunny rabbits as one left long scars on my left leg. Laughing

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:32 am

^^^heck, my little cats has caused more injuries then any of the dogs I have had but you know, she uses the litter box. Good thing for her she isn't very big.

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:40 am

Whether you agree with the ban or not, I'm still waiting to hear why you would choose to own an illegal dog and all the inconvenience that creates instead of one of the many legal alternatives. Go to any dog shelter and take your pick.