Breed specific legislation (banning certain breeds of dog)

D

Dr Lou Natic

Unnecessary Surgeon
Registered Senior Member
Breed specific legislation (banning certain breeds of dog)= gay

All over the world the bsl disease is spreading. In some places innocent friendly dogs are litterally being killed for looking a certain way.
Not by some crazy maniac, but by the government of said places and a large percentage of the population of these places applauds the governments "initiative".

In what ass backwards superstitious primitive countries is this occurring? Try england, canada, italy, france, australia, the us, to name but a few.
The breed portrayed as the big villain by the media, and the name that sends chills up the spines of "soccer mom's" everywhere, is the pitbull.
The pitbull... quite ironic, possibly the most trusting and human friendly breed in existence. A pitbull owners biggest concern is having their dog stolen, it happens all the time, no dog is reported stolen half as often as the american pitbull terrier.
Some maneater, do you think these people could steal a german shepherd? Ofcourse not, most dogs will attack a lowlife that comes into their yard and certainly won't happily let themselves be picked up and put in a car. Most pitbulls will, and they will be smiling and wagging their tail as it happens. They have been bred over hundreds of years to be extremely human friendly, it was in their unfortunate job description in fact, that they are able to be handled by strangers on a regular basis. Yes pitbulls are fighting dogs, no argument here, and this is why they were bred to be so human friendly. In a dogfight every pitbull is washed before hand by its opponents owner, also during the fight they are handled by referees, this means even while aggressively attacking another animal they need to be able to control themselves and focus and not bite the wrong thing.
I feel this is genetic cruelty, breeding an animal so against biting a human, because this unfortunately has lead to them being abused alot. Because they just won't bite people, even if the person is hurting them. They love human beings to an unnatural unhealthy degree.
And this is the breed, that when the government kill it, the citizens cheer? Dispicable.

"but mister natic, I saw on the news that a pitbull killed a child, what the bloody hell?!"

Is that an english accent sir?
Anyway...
Yes you do hear that on the news, quite a bit, and here's the horrible truth, the american pitbull terrier is not a recognised breed by any kennel club, this means it is considered "of pitbull type" by law, thing is, any muscular crossbreed with short hair is also considered "of pitbull type", a boxer cross labrador, would be considered of pitbull type, a large percentage of mutts would be considered pitbull type, also most rare breeds that aren't automatically identifyable are considered pitbull type(presa canario, cane corso, dogo argentino etc etc etc list goes on for quite some time), and dogs that are closely related to the pitbull are considered pitbull type, bull terrier, staffordshire terrier, etc.
Basically when a dog attacks someone, there is a really good chance the pitbull will be blamed, and an extremely slim chance that it was actually a purebred american pitbull terrier.
Has a purebred american pitbull terrier ever attacked someone? Maybe, probably, is there a breed that hasn't?

Also take into account that no other breed is as likely to be owned by people that shouldn't be owning dogs at all. People who torment them in the hopes it will make them tough. Only a dog lover is likely to own an afghan hound. But all types of insecure scumbags want a pitbull and not because they want to treat it nice and love it as a companion. Any animal has a breaking point where it will just snap, the pitbull is unfathomably tolerant to all sorts of punishment, but even it has its limits and it is forced to test those limits far more than just about every other breed.

You might be thinking I'm some biased pitbull breeder or pitbull enthusiast.
No, they aren't even my favourite breed, there are heaps of breeds I like more for different reasons.
But I am observing the situation and seeing it for what it is, and pitbulls have one of the rawest deals on earth, it makes me sick to my stomach.
All they have ever done through history is litterally kill themselves to make us happy. And now we turn on them, because we want to blame someone for children being bitten by dogs. The government knew giving the ignorant people something to focus their rage on would appease them.

The media tells stories of how these dogs were bred for fighting and this makes them loose cannons that can't be trusted and the people lap it up.
Even friends of mine who are seemingly intelligent people will say things like "no pitbulls turn on their owners man", which is absolutely ridiculous. Couldn't be further from the truth. I wish they would turn on their owners because their owners are torturing them but no they will not never, they are the last dog you will see doing that. When lowlifes get sick of them they'll throw them from moving cars and the dog will just get up and chase the car for miles down the street hoping his owner will forgive him for whatever he did wrong.

Its bad enough that the underground criminals are treating them like shit but the upperclass and those in power who are supposed to be decent reasonable people treat them like shit as well, and will sentence them to death for existing and then pat themselves and eachother on the back.
This might be the most disturbing aspect of humanity that is still thriving.

BTW pitbulls are not the only breeds who are victims of bsl, they will just always be the first in an area, and then every time a dog bites someone a breed will be added to the list. Italy has the most advanced list, it has just about every breed from english mastiffs to border collies and corgi's. A chilling vision of things to come? Possibly, unless people get a whole lot less ignorant very soon. Which I don't see happening.
Its funny they never ban the breeds that have the most reported attacks, not that that would be any less abhorrent ofcourse.

No breed is a bad breed, some breeds are more likely to snap(pitbulls definately not being one of them), some are more likely to chase kids if they run and some can cause more damage than others if they do attack(invariably seem to be the breeds less likely to attack).
But no dog is born to be bad, there is no dangerous race of dog, no puppy that is "bound to bite a kid some day", there are bad owners, terribly terribly bad owners every where, but thats kind of hard for the government to deal with so they ban a totally arbitrary breed of dog to shut the gullible people up, hype it up as being a problem first, of course, and then mothers breathe a sigh of relief "phew all those killer pitbulls are dead, my children are safe" They probably don't even realise that they grew up with a pitbull, it was probably the farm dog they used to ride around the paddocks or pull the ears of.
Petey from the little rascals was a pitbull.
(FYI the 7 alfalfa's that died during the making of that tv series had nothing to do with petey)

I know there are people here that probably think banning breeds of dog is a good idea, they are everywhere, speak up, lets hear it :rolleyes: KEEPING in mind that you are worse than hitler, similar, but far worse, oh sorry please continue...
 
Last edited:
I object to the name of this thread. Lets give credit where credit is due here, it is not homosexuals who are ordering the deaths of some silly dogs, so I don't think that they should even be mentioned anywhere in here.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
The government knew giving the ignorant people something to focus their rage on would appease them.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think you're blowing this just a tiny little bit out of proportion. I mean I can honestly say that I have never seen any anti-putbull propaganda, nor has any government official told me that they are bad dogs, and to the best of my knowledge no politician has ever attempted to manipulate me and play on my fear of pitbulls to win a vote. I'm not saying you don't have a point with the rest of your post, just that Pitbulls aren't exactly the mass scapegoat that you're making them out to be.
 
Mystech said:
it is not homosexuals who are ordering the deaths of some silly dogs
Click to expand...
Oh come on, you just know they're behind it:mad:
In all seriousness, we know what gay means in the context I used it, it means not-good, its one of those double meaning words or whatever, you know, like evening can be used as "evening the score" or "having a good time this evening". If I said bsl is run by the gays, you'd have a case.

And unfortunately I'm not exaggerating anything.
Are you saying you weren't under the impression that pitbulls were aggressive dangerous dogs?
I'm impressed if not and you obviously don't believe everything you hear. Unfortunately MOST people do have this view of the pitbull, and alot of them don't even know what they look like, let alone what they are actually like. This is purely from media hype and the government appeases the community by banning them. Its a half-assed little thing to shut whining worried people up without having to actually do hard work, and it works, because people are ignorant and stupid.
In the meantime perfect friendly member of society canines that are loved dearly are being killed. Because of baseless discrimination.
Its like if "muscular people" or a certain race had genocide committed against them because they were considered dangerous. This would be bad enough, but then imagine if the average person was glad and thought this was a good thing and the whole world seemed insane.
You'd see how it is a very serious issue, right? Whats the difference?
 
"bad idea?" :( tiassa if its not too much to ask can you just forget the "=___" part, I was going to, added gay at the last second, thought it was a good idea, guess it wasn't.
If its not gay, I'd like it to be blank, but whatever.

Spurious I don't know what to say to that. The only thing amusing about it is that people are starving in china. Thats some brilliantly beautifull natural justice/karma right there.
Other than that your post saddens me:(
 
I thought about using the phrase "soccer mom," since it appeared in your post and doesn't make a blanket over all women, but still ... it didn't seem much better.

This work well enough as it is?

-bd
 
hehe
Thats fine. My only fear is that people won't realise how gay the situation is without being specifically told. Like what if they now naturally assume its a hetero issue that needs no rectification?
Obviously I'm just kidding, but if there is no room for that then you can delete this as well, i won't be mad

I fear this thread won't get a serious reply, which is depressing, not because I enjoy having successful threads but because it shows that people in general just don't really care. Imagine if this was still happening to a race of homo-sapien, and it was agreed by the vast majority that yes race-x should be eliminated from existence. Well this is actually happening, it just doesn't happen to be humans, whats the enormous difference that would make my analogous scenario so much more serious and horrible than whats really going on? I honestly have a hard time understanding the average human mindset.

This goes beyond pitbulls, there are many people that also think the seas should be cleaned of pesky sharks.
As disturbing as that is i find the pitbull issue more disturbing due to how by their very nature they worship humans as gods. There is something really creepy and wrong about that, its not a case of predator ruthlessly hunting down prey, its more like stabbing your buddy who thinks the sun shines from your face in the back.
If we humans want them dead what chance do they have? They only live for us, they will and do frequently fight themselves to death because their god is there egging them on and urging them to continue despite exhaustion and serious injury, and they do. They've been unnaturally evolved to hold pleasing humans as more important than their own survival.
Some people have taken this natural trait for the breed and focused it in positive directions, weight pulling contests and stuff like that, but these same dogs who are guilty of nothing but doing their best to please will be murdered by the bsl for no reason other than their ancestry.

Maybe its just me, but I think you'd have to be pretty cold to not have a huge problem with that.
 
The whole issue with banning certain breeds of animals as pets always makes me feel a bit 'iffy'. Lou, while you are right in saying that not all pit bulls are dangerous and that the majority are loving animals, I guess the public have panicked at the number of attacks that have occured in the past. It has gotten to the point now where some local councils are banning German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Blue Heelers, etc because of the increase in attacks on people, especially children.

No one wants to see a child get torn up by an animal. However, nor do I want to see the family choosing or allowing to own a pet becoming so restricted that in the end, all will end up with a poodle. It would have maybe been better to force all owners of dogs to attend dog training classes and also classes on keeping and maintaining pets in a bid to prevent such attacks from happening. For example, it might maybe be better if local councils forced dog owners to attend training sessions before their dogs are registered. And it would be even better if such training sessions were free and held by the council. The reason some dogs attack is because they aren't trained at all and have little contact with other people aside from those within their own families. If you have a dog, you should ensure that it is kept in your yard, thereby reducing the risk of attack on the general public. Families with small children should be especially careful in choosing what kind of pet they get as not all dogs are suitable for small children. There are so many alternatives to the actual banning of the dog breeds themselves and I agree with you that in that are unfair. It is only one breed that is given such a bad name, but in reality, many other breeds are just as dangerous if not more so. My cousin's son was attacked and bitten in the face by a Golden Retriever when he was only 3 years old, a bite which required several operations to rebuild his face. A family pet who all thought would be great with kids due to its supposedly placid temper. Yet, we are always told that the golden retriever is one of the best dogs for kids.

Maybe before banning, other alternatives should have been looked at.


:eek:
 
oops
i accidently stepped on a paw today. tried to nip me so i lifted across the room with one swift kick. hope you dont mind
 
bells is entirely correct. The problems are also down to a large part to irresponsible breeding of the animals concerned, such that they are more agrressive and have various physical problems. Apparently that was part of the reason german shepherds got such a bad reason in the 80's in the UK. The idiot owners are always also to blame. I have seen children out with dogs that could easily have escaped and done damage, and also seen adults who cant control their dogs at all. "come" Dog goes and sniffs a different tree. "come, now, heel fido" etc, and the dog just ignored them. Then theres the problem that children are simply not the best thing to have around a dog, since they are inquisitive, tend to do things dogs dont like, etc. I nearly got nipped by one of the family labradors simply for teasing him too much. And my parents would have said "serves you right", assuming the injury wasnt too bad. So theres not much sensible repsonses to this topic you can expect, Dr lounatic, since most sensible people agree with your general drift, even if not with the way you express it.
 
My expericne with it isnt vast, but ive noticed that bad dogs ive known alwayse seem to have bad owners. They neglect the dog, leave it outside in all sorts of weather, dont walk it, play rough with it (read smack it around), dont bother to do any training. Really if you are going to own a strong dog you aught to be a responcible person who is going to care for the animal. I have to agree with Lou, ive known two pit bull types that were just the most happy affectionate dogs I know. Maybe the answer is licenses for large dogs? Some sort of large dog owner certification to make sure you arnt going to be a jerk to the poor creature.
 
If you know what you are doing, you can train almost any breed to do most anything it is physically capable of doing. You can train a German shepherd or a poodle to be a retriever or other type of hunting dog. The dogs bred to hunting tasks will probably be better than the shepherd or the poodle, but the latter breeds will do a fair job.

If you eliminated all the breeds considered to be pit bulls, the lunatics would train shepherds or some other type of large dog to be fighting dogs. Those who want vicious dogs will train some breed to be vicious. You would have to eliminate every dog that weighed more than 20-30 pounds. Even then, the nuts would probably train miniature poodles to fight each other. Dobermans make good attack dogs, but you could probably train a golden retriever to be a fair attack dog: It would just take longer.
 
My expericne with it isnt vast, but ive noticed that bad dogs ive known alwayse seem to have bad owners.
Click to expand...
Once again, it would seem--and I do not contest this point at all, but rather heartily endorse it--that the solution is not "birth control for dogs," but, rather, birth control for human beings.

;)

( :m: )
 
Blame the AKC, puppy mills, and the owners.

With standards that are based purely upon aesthetics the AKC promotes inbreeding (to strengthen fashionable traits) while neglecting temperament and health (unlike, for instance, the ADRK). If you want a well bred animal find one bred to ADRK or "German" standards. The difference is immense.

Puppy mills likewise take no responsibility for the health and temperament of the animals. Add to this generally horrid living conditions, premature weaning, and the over-breed of bitches way beyond any recommended number of litters. Never buy a puppy mill puppy; which translates into never buy a puppy from a pet store (notable exceptions excluded).

Ultimately the responsibility lies with the owners. The lack of proper training is the primary problem with improper constraints and over breeding a close second and third. Socializing the animal is highly important. Many owners feel that if their dog behaves well around them it is safe but this ignores the instinctive social behavior of the dog. A dog considers its human family as its pack (a fact that's important to recognize in training). As such, a dog will typically perceive an intrusion into its territory as something to be wary of (which is why they give warning barks) and often as an intruder that needs to be driven off or attacked.

Ah, sorry, I'm rambling now...

~Raithere
 
No no raithere, your saying all teh good sense stuff that has already been said. Dog lovers of the world unite!
When buying a puppy, (and a cat) try and see it with its motehr. A reputable breeder wont have any trouble with that. If the condistions are bad, ie dirty, the mother loosk distressed, etc, dont buy one.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Spurious I don't know what to say to that. The only thing amusing about it is that people are starving in china. Thats some brilliantly beautifull natural justice/karma right there.
Other than that your post saddens me:(
Click to expand...

Ach ja, I guess they should first start eating their children.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
They have been bred over hundreds of years to be extremely human friendly.
Click to expand...
Overall I tend to side with you just because as a libertarian I would like to see the government butt out of our lives, not keep manufacturing more excuses to butt in.

But as a dog breeder I must correct you on the above point. The pitbull has not been around for hundreds of years. It is a very recent creation, certainly twentieth century and probably post-WWII, a hybrid of the bull terrier, the Staffordshire, and a few other gene pools.

Very few dog breeds go back much further than a hundred years. I don't think there are thirty that can be traced back even to 1000 AD.

You are correct that the pitbull is not exceptionally aggressive toward humans. But since it was bred for the pit, it is exceptionally aggressive toward other dogs, and is not trustworthy around other pets. Pitbulls were selectively bred for the alpha gene. We breed Lhasa Apsos (guard dogs of the Tibetan monasteries) who also have an almost 100 percent incidence of the alpha gene (even in the females), so we know what that can mean. An independent spirit, not easily trained to follow orders, doesn't take any shit from other dogs or anything that occupies the same social niche as a dog. Our dogs weigh 15-20 pounds and tend to have underbites. Pitbulls are much bigger and have perfect bites!

Pitbulls are statistically dangerous neighbors to other pets. Everybody's dog occasionally gets out of the yard; an alpha male or even an alpha female actively looks for the opportunity. We worry that one of our little dogs will pick a fight with a neighbor dog and get his ass kicked. A pitbull will start a fight with a neighbor dog and kill it.

That's the difference, and that's why so many people are, rightfully, ill at ease with pitbulls in their neighborhood.

Worrying about my child being killed, I agree. Shit happens and pitbulls are no more likely to do it than any other dog. But worrying about my dog or cat being killed, that is genuine. I'm sorry but pitbulls really are something to worry about. I wouldn't want one in my neighborhood either. But I stop short of asking the government to solve the problem for me. It's a big country and pitbull lovers can have their own place to live together where they won't bother the rest of us. Just like people who want to practice drums in their garage, raise stinky mushrooms, or tune up their motorcycle engines at three in the morning.
 
The american pitbull terrier may have been recognised after world war 2 but it is actually the direct descendent of the original bull and terrier cross. As are all the bull terrier breeds, (except for the english bullterrier which was made when a man named hinks crossed other breeds into the bull and terrier). The american staff, irish staff and staffordshire bull are all just branches of the original bull terrier, when i say the pitbull has been bred to be human friendly for hundreds of years it is very much accurate as all the fighting dogs in england since the original bull baiters have been bred to be overly human friendly. Out of all the remaining bull and terriers the pitbull may have had this strict form of culling(not breeding those that show human aggression) for the longest due to the fact it is still bred and used as a fighting dog to this day.

As for your next point, yes you are correct, cats and dogs are likely to be attacked by pitbulls, but this isn't the excuse given for them being banned. If it was I'd have to shut up because there is no deceit going on there, pitbulls are very much animal aggressive.
But they are billed as super crazy aggressive beasts with short fuses that will eat your baby etc etc and its simply not true and couldn't be further from the truth, its a flagrant case of the law being based on lies.
The ironic part is in the anti-pitbull articles they will say things like "these dogs are bred for fighting and so are very dangerous and aggressive" when in actual fact that is why they are not aggressive. The dogs from fighting lines (or gamebred as they say) are the absolute least likely to attack a human being.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Oh come on, you just know they're behind it:mad:
In all seriousness, we know what gay means in the context I used it, it means not-good, its one of those double meaning words or whatever, you know, like evening can be used as "evening the score" or "having a good time this evening". If I said bsl is run by the gays, you'd have a case.
Click to expand...
I know I know, save the lecture. It's just that it's part of my own personal agenda to make a fuss whenever uses it in that way. It used to mean happy, then somewhere along the line it got applied to homosexuals, and that was just fine because it was a nice word anyway, and now the damned heterosexual youth are trying to strip us of that, and I don't like it! I mean seriously, hearing it used like that makes me think that you're a complete het (used derogatorily).

Anyway thanks for getting it changed. I'm sorry I was ridding your ass about it, but can you really blame a homosexual for being anal? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top