Dangerous Dogs

[Refuse Matt M]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13559771,00.html

After this recent headline news story (and the many before it), what are your views on 'dangerous dogs' ?


I know in theory that any dog can turn at any given moment, but why anyone with a young family would ever keep a notoriously dangerous dog is something I cannot understand at all.
You're a dog lover, big deal. It's an incredibly selfish act to keep a dog of certain breeds with a young family. Either have kids or a dangerous dog, don't have both.

I guess some people are just stupid:?

[The.Icon]

Put them all down, and I don't give a toss it that offends Animal lovers.

[Refuse Matt M]

Put them all down, and I don't give a toss it that offends Animal lovers.


Or keep them alive only for the purpose of having legalized dog fights.
Pitbull VS Rottweiler etc.
If it was on Sky Sports, I'd bet and watch it.

[Anime_Otaku]

All dogs or just the ones classifieds as dangerous?

[ahsatan]

Put them all down, and I don't give a toss it that offends Animal lovers.


By "put them all down", exactly what dogs do you mean? All of them or selected breeds? And if it's selected breeds, then what breeds?

[OMAR DAYS]

After personally been attacked by a dog, I'll see put them all down. It's terrifing. These dogs have only been breed to fight and attack, plus they get very jealous of attention on younger kids from their owners.

[ahsatan]

Or keep them alive only for the purpose of having legalized dog fights.
Pitbull VS Rottweiler etc.
If it was on Sky Sports, I'd bet and watch it.

If this is a double post, then I'm sorry but honestly, I hope you are joking. I find this totally and utterly sickening.

[The.Icon]

By "put them all down", exactly what dogs do you mean? All of them or selected breeds? And if it's selected breeds, then what breeds?

Just the really dangerous ones, and not whole breeds as such although most pitbulls would go. Alsatians (sp) can be nice dogs when not trained as killers (I had one years ago) and so can Dobermen as it happens.

[Refuse Matt M]

Just the really dangerous ones, and not whole breeds as such although most pitbulls would go. Alsatians (sp) can be nice dogs when not trained as killers (I had one years ago) and so can Dobermen as it happens.


Any dog can be nice when trained correctly, that's the argument of all dog lovers.
But nearly all of the dogs who attack were trained correctly (the one in this story may be different).
Certain dogs just have it in them more than others, and I think it's truly digusting that some parents, for their own selfish satisfaction, will allow them around their children.

[Twig]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13559771,00.html

After this recent headline news story (and the many before it), what are your views on 'dangerous dogs' ?


I know in theory that any dog can turn at any given moment, but why anyone with a young family would ever keep a notoriously dangerous dog is something I cannot understand at all.
You're a dog lover, big deal. It's an incredibly selfish act to keep a dog of certain breeds with a young family. Either have kids or a dangerous dog, don't have both.

I guess some people are just stupid:?

Some people are very stupid. Like those who subscribe to the biggoted "notoriously dangerous breed" theory. :)

[ahsatan]

Or keep them alive only for the purpose of having legalized dog fights.
Pitbull VS Rottweiler etc.
If it was on Sky Sports, I'd bet and watch it.


Quoted again....

And one wonders exactly why some of them turned nasty in the first place. Human intervention, perhaps?

[The.Icon]

Mind I'm more scared of Cats than So called dangerous dogs anyway, evil little gits.

Some dogs though shoudn't be pets, again not breeds just dogs.

[Refuse Matt M]

Some people are very stupid. Like those who subscribe to the biggoted "notoriously dangerous breed" theory. :)



Erm, please explain what is bigoted about saying certain dogs are notoriously dangerous??!

Rottweilers, Pitbulls and Dobermans ARE commonly thought of as being notoriously dangerous dogs.
If Jack Russells were in the news regularly for savaging people, they'd be notoriously dangerous too. But they don't.



Quoted again....

And one wonders exactly why some of them turned nasty in the first place. Human intervention, perhaps?


I was joking about dogfights.
It wouldn't particularly bother me, but I certainly wouldn't campaign for it to be legal or anything.

[The.Icon]

No but they do nip your ankles.

Not every Doberman, pitbull yada yada is dangerous. The ones that are need to be put down.

[G2G]

Dangerous dogs should be banned in all households with any children living there under the age of 16 IMO. The story of that 5 year old getting mauled to death by the dog was upsetting, and drastic measures need to be done about it to prevent it from happening again.

[Nicole]

I think you should have a license and training to keep certain breeds of dogs, and some should never be allowed with people under the age of 16. Its just stupid who gets there hands on these dogs and just can't handle them. It should have stricter controls.

[ahsatan]

I was joking about dogfights.
It wouldn't particularly bother me, but I certainly wouldn't campaign for it to be legal or anything.



Well the fact that it wouldn't bother you still sickens me. Has it occured to you that certain breeds of dog wouldn't get this publicity if it weren't for dog fights in the past (and present) unfortunately? A labrador never instictively helped a blind man cross the road. A beagle didn't instictively hunt foxes. A Saint Bernard didn't instictively bring you brandy when you were dying on a mountain!
You say it's the breeds fault. It's not. And by not being opposed to dog fights, you're not helping the situation.

[Refuse Matt M]

Well the fact that it wouldn't bother you still sickens me. Has it occured to you that certain breeds of dog wouldn't get this publicity if it weren't for dog fights in the past (and present) unfortunately? A labrador never instictively helped a blind man cross the road. A beagle didn't instictively hunt foxes. A Saint Bernard didn't instictively bring you brandy when you were dying on a mountain!
You say it's the breeds fault. It's not. And by not being opposed to dog fights, you're not helping the situation.


It bothers me about as much as fox hunting bothers me.
If someone asked me to sign a petition against it, I probably would.

The point isn't about why certain dogs are more likely to be dangerous than others tho.
The point is about what cretinous parent would allow one to be with their young children.

[Twig]

Erm, please explain what is bigoted about saying certain dogs are notoriously dangerous??!

Rottweilers, Pitbulls and Dobermans ARE commonly thought of as being notoriously dangerous dogs.
If Jack Russells were in the news regularly for savaging people, they'd be notoriously dangerous too. But they don't.

There's a lot of **** that goes down that isn't in the news, and further more the media spins, hypes and alters actual events to create drama, and fear in the viewer.

As for the dangerous breed theory being bigoted, well when taken as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Well when I say that my Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the most loving and affectionate dog I've ever known (and she isn't my first pet dog) I've encountered "bigots" who are utterly intolerant of this "belief" (which I hold as a fact), and tell me that my dog will go crazy and maul me in my sleep.

Furthermore, all dogs are rational, predicatble, and innately subbordinate to humans. In fact they are so subbordinate that if some disgusting person trains their loving animal to fight to the death, it will. And a dog cannot "snap at any time." But now I'm just getting into a discussion that we've already had on the boards... go use the search button.

[Charlemagne]

its not the dogs i blame its the owners. yes, if a dog attacks it should be put down as it is dangerous and cannot be "rehabilitated" so to speak. but to say al rottweilers, pitbulls etc.. are dangerous is rubbish. I once knew a rottweiller who was scared of ANYONE who came into its house apart from the owners. If you wanted you could probably train a jack russell to be a "dangerous" dog. Any dog can attack and at any time so its stupid to say all dogs in the "dangerous" breed should be illegal as most make loving family pets

[K.J]

its not the dogs i blame its the owners. yes, if a dog attacks it should be put down as it is dangerous and cannot be "rehabilitated" so to speak. but to say al rottweilers, pitbulls etc.. are dangerous is rubbish. I once knew a rottweiller who was scared of ANYONE who came into its house apart from the owners. If you wanted you could probably train a jack russell to be a "dangerous" dog. Any dog can attack and at any time so its stupid to say all dogs in the "dangerous" breed should be illegal as most make loving family pets

Thing is if you train a Jack Russel to be dangerous it's not going to maul a 5 year old to death is it? Dangerous dogs are dogs capable of killing people.

[Refuse Matt M]

I don't think anyone is saying that ALL dogs of a certain breed are dangerous.
I've heard various stories of Bull Mastiffs attacking people, and yet we have one in my office which is the most placid thing you could ever hope to meet.
But like it or not, certain breeds of dog do tend to attack people more than others. That's not doggy bigotry, it's fact.

I'm not saying don't keep them at all, just don't keep them if you have young children.

[Twig]

Thing is if you train a Jack Russel to be dangerous it's not going to maul a 5 year old to death is it? Dangerous dogs are dogs capable of killing people.

A person can use a car to kill a person much easier than they can condition a dog to... So logic would tell us to destroy every car before we go after the dogs. :D In fact, I can think of a long list of things more dangerous than a dog.

I don't think anyone is saying that ALL dogs of a certain breed are dangerous.

There are a lot of people who say that (see: Breed Specific Legislation). And I'm sorry if I jumped down your throat, making the assumption that you did too, but this is a very sensitive issue for me.

[Refuse Matt M]

A person can use a car to kill a person much easier than they can condition a dog to... So logic would tell us to destroy every car before we go after the dogs. :D In fact, I can think of a long list of things more dangerous than a dog.



There are a lot of people who say that.



Ofcourse there are things more dangerous than dogs, but that's not the point.
Why put a child at risk?
Most of these dogs that attack, have no history of violence whatsoever. Nobody bred them to fight, nobody bred them to attack, they just did.
If people want to take the risk, then I have a very low opinion of them and I hope they feel guilty if anything happens to their child.

Hopefully this recent case is going to toughen up the existing dog laws in some way.
I understand some people love dogs, but I just don't think certain dogs should be allowed in certain situations. It may only be a very small risk, but surely any risk at all is too much for a parent?

[Nimf]

I think you should have a license and training to keep certain breeds of dogs, and some should never be allowed with people under the age of 16. Its just stupid who gets there hands on these dogs and just can't handle them. It should have stricter controls.
That's a REALLY good idea. But perhaps extend it to all dogs as all dogs can be trained to be damn violent. The reason these "dangerous dogs" do that damage they do is because of the size they are. We don't hear about smaller dogs doing damage as the wounds are much smaller and mostly non fatal, but I can bet you just as many of those hideous yapping dogs bite and attack people as the larger ones. And I can bet you they don't get put down half as often as the "dangerous dogs" do.

[Refuse Matt M]

That's a REALLY good idea. But perhaps extend it to all dogs as all dogs can be trained to be damn violent. The reason these "dangerous dogs" do that damage they do is because of the size they are. We don't hear about smaller dogs doing damage as the wounds are much smaller and mostly non fatal, but I can bet you just as many of those hideous yapping dogs bite and attack people as the larger ones. And I can bet you they don't get put down half as often as the "dangerous dogs" do.


You've said it, they don't get put down because they're not causing very serious or fatal injuries.
If they did, then they would.

[Twig]

Ofcourse there are things more dangerous than dogs, but that's not the point.
Why put a child at risk?
Most of these dogs that attack, have no history of violence whatsoever. Nobody bred them to fight, nobody bred them to attack, they just did.
If people want to take the risk, then I have a very low opinion of them and I hope they feel guilty if anything happens to their child.

Hopefully this recent case is going to toughen up the existing dog laws in some way.
I understand some people love dogs, but I just don't think certain dogs should be allowed in certain situations. It may only be a very small risk, but surely any risk at all is too much for a parent?

My pitbull is very affectionate, and yet keenly delicate with the infants she has met. Maybe it's because she's actually mothered a litter of puppies before and understands the fragile and delicate nature of baby animals (humans are animals too ya know). Or do you think it's irresponsible for "dangrous breeds of dogs" to be around puppies too?

[Anime_Otaku]

I had a Boxer (I think they come from Staffies and soemthing else) that was the same way, she'd flatten people when they came in the door but with little kids she was more gentle (still licked the face off them though) and she let a baby my Mum used to watch away with loads with nothing but an occasional whimper.

[Refuse Matt M]

My pitbull is very affectionate, and yet keenly delicate with the infants she has met. Maybe it's because she's actually mothered a litter of puppies before and understands the fragile and delicate nature of baby animals (humans are animals too ya know). Or do you think it's irresponsible for "dangrous breeds of dogs" to be around puppies too?


The dogs that attack kids don't go around attacking them daily. Often they are docile for years, then for whatever reason they savage someone.
I cannot fathom why any parent would take that risk, sorry.

These are just recent incidents:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1245692,00.html


Most people have nothing but good stories of dogs, I agree with that.

[DC]

A Saint Bernard didn't instictively bring you brandy when you were dying on a mountain! I hate to be a nit-picker (ok, no I don't, and I've used that line before too), but St. Bernards never brought brandy for those lost in the mountains.St. Bernards are often portrayed, especially in comics and cartoons, with small barrels of brandy worn around their necks. This was supposedly used to warm the victims that the dogs found. However, the monks deny that any St. Bernard has ever carried casks or small barrels around their necks; they believe that the origin of the image is an early painting. The monks did keep casks around for photographs by tourists.

St Bernard (http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9313335) - A mastifflike breed of working dog known for its courageous and determined search-and-rescue work in the Swiss Alps; it is often depicted wearing a small brandy keg around its neck that is to be used to revive avalanche and frostbite victims, a quaint symbol that is merely a myth perpetuated by artist Edwin Landseer in his famous portrait of the breed reviving a traveler.I used to have two Rottweiler/Doberman crossbreeds, and they were fine, but I put that down to their environment.

[Refuse Matt M]

The worst types of people who own dogs are those who have them as some kind of masculinity extension.
You could just imagine King Chav walking down the street with three Pitbulls.

[The Crippler]

I think there have been quite a few cases like this in Northern Ireland in recent years where people have been mauled and by illegal dogs. It's a very big problem in parts of Belfast and I think they've went about tightening up the laws on such animals.

I personally don't know why people would want to keep such animals and my full blame goes with the owners. It isn't the animals' fault.

[Refuse Matt M]

A mate of mine used to own two Japanese Akitas.
Terrifying things they were, no wonder I never went near his house.

[Twig]

The dogs that attack kids don't go around attacking them daily. Often they are docile for years, then for whatever reason they savage someone.
I cannot fathom why any parent would take that risk, sorry.

That reason is often neglected, and rarely investigated. I'd hazard a guess as to say that nearly all attacks from previously docile dogs have been instigated by the victim... just like how there is not a single doccumented case of an unprovoked wolf attack on a human... you know wolves, the wild version of dogs. :xyx

[Refuse Matt M]

That reason is often neglected, and rarely investigated. I'd hazard a guess as to say that nearly all attacks from previously docile dogs have been instigated by the victim... just like how there is not a single doccumented case of an unprovoked wolf attack on a human... you know wolves, the wild version of dogs. :xyx


Yeah those damn infants, provoking the poor dogs to savage them, it's their own damn faults isn't it :roll

Seriously, I couldn't care less if a child provokes a dog or not. Every sane human being should be putting the welfare of children ahead of an animal they like.

[Darkstar]

And a dog cannot "snap at any time."

Why not? People can.


But like it or not, certain breeds of dog do tend to attack people more than others.

Yeah, the joys of racial memory.


just like how there is not a single doccumented case of an unprovoked wolf attack on a human... you know wolves, the wild version of dogs. :xyx

Ummm, try your facts dude. There isnt a single record in 100 years of a FATAL unprovoked attack of a healthy wolf attacking a human in North America. Easten Europe is a different story however. :xyx

[Twig]

Why not? People can.
Actually there will alwyas be a series of events leading up to an individual "snapping" whether it be mental disease, exterior stress, whatever. It's never "at any time".

Ummm, try your facts dude. There isnt a single record in 100 years of a FATAL unprovoked attack of a healthy wolf attacking a human in North America. Easten Europe is a different story however. :xyx

Bah! Semantics. You know I'm still indulging in a Jagermeister enduced escapade... But I think part of my original point is still standing somewhat in tact... right?

[Darkstar]

Yeah, I just get annoyed when people post incorrect things about the animal world. :P

[Antihero]

A dog is never dangerous on its own, its how its owner treats and controls it. Therefore the owner (especially as this current case the owner received several warnings) must take some of the blame for this latest tragedy. Its time to take more action against owners who fail to control or treat their dogs properly.

[Darkstar]

A dog is never dangerous on its own,


I disagree with this. Dogs are like people, some are just jerks.

[Twig]

Yeah those damn infants, provoking the poor dogs to savage them, it's their own damn faults isn't it :roll

Yeah, those infants who have yet to reach the mental maturity to recognize other consciousness from their own, and will therefore possibly smack a dog in the face with complete disregard. Infants need constant supervision, as they're contsantly vulnerable to bring their own demise upon them... you wouldn't euthenaise(sp?) the pokemon toy that suffocated a child some years back would you?

BTW, loving how the conversation turned to infant suicide.

[Nimf]

You've said it, they don't get put down because they're not causing very serious or fatal injuries.
If they did, then they would.
So it's ok for a small dog to attack, say, 10 people but as long as the injuries aren't fatal, let's leave the dog to live?

Yeah those damn infants, provoking the poor dogs to savage them, it's their own damn faults isn't it :roll

Seriously, I couldn't care less if a child provokes a dog or not. Every sane human being should be putting the welfare of children ahead of an animal they like.
It's not the infants fault, no, but the adults for leaving the children around the dogs. I'm using the previous case of a child being killed with this one, where it was a wee baby in her cot or something. Babies cry, scream and kick about and all that WOULD antagonise a dog-it antagonises humans sometimes, but we don't get put down for attacking children...

Yeah, those infants who have yet to reach the mental maturity to recognize other consciousness from their own, and will therefore possibly smack a dog in the face with complete disregard. Infants need constant supervision, as they're contsantly vulnerable to bring their own demise upon them... you wouldn't euthenaise(sp?) the pokemon toy that suffocated a child some years back would you?

BTW, loving how the conversation turned to infant suicide.
Sometimes it doesn't need a smack though-unfortunately, a lot of parents forget to instill in children that some dogs won't be as cute and cuddly as the one they have at home. My ex's parents have a few dogs and they have always been brilliant around my boys. They used to have a sheep dog who would growl if the boys got too feisty with them, as a warning, and they knew to back off. The labrador they have now thinks he's human. But we would never leave the boys unattended just incase. The placidity (is that even a word?!?) of these dogs meant that, when they were younger, i'd have to keep an eye on the boys around strange dogs as they assumed they could just go up to them and cuddle them. The sad thing is, some dogs don't like that.

We DO need to remember that dogs are, by nature, wild animals. We as humans chose to domesticate them so they're bound to still have a feral instinct in them.

[Kanenite]

I disagree with this. Dogs are like people, some are just jerks.

Some dogs can be, sure, but the majority of dogs become aggressive, nasty, vicious because of owners. A bad owner makes a bad dog and in cases a bad owner makes a dog very uncomfortable around humans thus causing their attitudes to change.

[Nicole]

I got bitten by a dog about 2 years ago, it was a rottweiler. I was waiting outside of school, the owner walked past with the dog and it just bit me...on the ass, and drew blood. Owner looked and ran off with the dog. That is an irresponsible owner. If I'd of known who the bloke was, I'd have reported him and the dog to the police in the hope that it would have been put down or at least been taken away from the bloke. If a dog attacks in the street with no provacation at all, then there is something seriously wrong about the way it has been handled and the temperament of the dog. Thats why I believe owners should have to go through a long training process to own dogs, because too many idiots are getting there hands on dogs which can cause fatalities.

[ahsatan]

I hate to be a nit-picker (ok, no I don't, and I've used that line before too), but St. Bernards never brought brandy for those lost in the mountains.


I think I must have needed the [BEING FACETIOUS] [/BEING FACETIOUS] tags...

;)

[Nemesis Enforcer]

I agree with the dangerous dogs act, some breeds of dog were bread for many many years to be aggesive, i'm afraid you can't just say with training that instinct will disapear becuase if its in your gene's it can't.

Look at Lions, Tiger etc, sure you can get tame ones but deep down they are still aggresive animals its the same with dogs which breeds have been bread to be aggressive and strong for fighting

[Refuse Matt M]

It can't just dissapear, it's always there.

The majority of pitbulls/rottweilers/dobermans etc do not attack people.
But the majority of paedophiles don't molest children.
And would you leave your child alone with a paedophile?

[Twig]

I agree with the dangerous dogs act, some breeds of dog were bread for many many years to be aggesive, i'm afraid you can't just say with training that instinct will disapear becuase if its in your gene's it can't.

Bull Terriers have been bread to love and display affection for every human they meet, family or stranger. But you're right, that doesn't just go away. :xyx

[Nemesis Enforcer]

Bull Terriers are generally friendly dogs. Their physical strength is matched by their intelligence, and both body and mind need to be kept active. They can be obstinate and are not ideal dogs for the first-time owner. As a breed they are generally placid but it has to be remembered that they were originally bred as fighting dogs therefore they may react if challenged but they will not normally make the first move. They are very affectionate dogs that love human company, so it is not a good idea to leave them alone for long periods of time as with their strong jaws they can cause severe damage if bored. Bull Terriers are one of the better breeds of dogs to have around children, but like all pets a watchful eye is always needed.

Bull Terriers (as above form wiki) are not the same as Pit Bull Terriers though which is more dangerous and aggressive :xyx

[Twig]

pit bull is a term that encompasses many breeds of dogs, which include all of the Bull Terriers, but also the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier, English Bull Terrier and then there are even more which people just seem to like to lump in there too, such as the Argentine Dogo, the American Bulldog, and the Perro de Presa Canario.

But Wikipedia is an unreliable source.

[NSMale]

If a dog attacks someone and seriously injures a person or kills them, the dog should be put down, and the owners fined/put in jail.

Dogs can be trained to behave. Abused, mistreated, and undisciplined dogs attack.

[Refuse Matt M]

Dogs can be trained to behave. Abused, mistreated, and undisciplined dogs attack.


They can.
But as I've already said, many cases of dog attacks come from dogs that are well trained and have zero history of violence.
My entire point is that any parent who takes the risk, is a complete cretin.

[Twig]

They can.
But as I've already said, many cases of dog attacks come from dogs that are well trained and have zero history of violence.

What proof do you have to back that up with? The word of the owner who cliams to have trained them? Do you think someone who hits their dog and avidly watches it chase small creatures is going to tell you that when it "randomly" attacks a small child? Of course they won't. What about recognition from the AKC or UKC. I know in America if you complete an AKC approved training program you can show your dog (in a competition or wherever) with the specific title: CGC, to show this.

[Refuse Matt M]

What proof do you have to back that up with? The word of the owner who cliams to have trained them? Do you think someone who hits their dog and avidly watches it chase small creatures is going to tell you that when it "randomly" attacks a small child? Of course they won't. What about recognition from the AKC or UKC. I know in America if you complete an AKC approved training program you can show your dog (in a competition or wherever) with the specific title: CGC, to show this.



So do you really think that every dog attack is because the owner treats it badly?
We're talking about family pets in the majority of these cases. If the dog had a history of violence, then it wouldn't be around anymore.
Are the owners terrible parents or just terrible keepers of dogs?
In many stories of dog attacks I have read in the past, you often get the family saying stuff like "well it's never attacked anything before, it's always been a good family pet".
Then one day, for whatever reason, it snaps.

Kind of like murderers sometimes snap. Maybe it's because they were mistreated by mummy and daddy, but that's still not really a legitimate excuse.
Obviously dogs are totally different to human beings in that respect, but I honestly and truthfully do not understand how or why anybody with a young family would risk having certain dogs in their homes.

Admittedly I am totally biased, because I've never been a dog lover and I've always despised animal rights groups such as PETA.

[Twig]

So do you really think that every dog attack is because the owner treats it badly?
We're talking about family pets in the majority of these cases. If the dog had a history of violence, then it wouldn't be around anymore.
Are the owners terrible parents or just terrible keepers of dogs?
In many stories of dog attacks I have read in the past, you often get the family saying stuff like "well it's never attacked anything before, it's always been a good family pet".
Then one day, for whatever reason, it snaps.

Kind of like murderers sometimes snap. Maybe it's because they were mistreated by mummy and daddy, but that's still not really a legitimate excuse.
Obviously dogs are totally different to human beings in that respect, but I honestly and truthfully do not understand how or why anybody with a young family would risk having certain dogs in their homes.

So as a parent you probably wouldn't want any people in your home either, right? Cuz just like you said they can 'snap'. probably should destroy anything that's big enough for a kid to choke on too, and hey, I've even seen people choke on food. Only an irresponsible parent would keep food in the same house as a child.

We've already talking about the "snapping at any moment" thing, but what's really getting me is that you're discriminating what dogs are safe around children, based on breed alone. That makes you a doggist in my book, and that ain't cool.

[Taki]

HI cretinous, irresponsible, idiotic, dim witted, yada yada ya what ever parent here. Leader of Rottweiler and mother of 2 children, getting really annoyed at being called the names above by 1 person in particular get a bloody clue.

A person never owns a dog it leads it, and I would have no worries actually make that I have no worries about leaving my dog in the same room alone with my children and I actually trust my dog more than I trust humans they dont backstab.

I also refuse to take the views of some jumped up jack doodle who's never had a dog in his life. How could you ever know what dogs do?

A human is more dangerous than a dog how many cases have we heard in the past 10 years of people killing people? Now compared that to the number of dog attacks and figure out whats more dangerous a dog or a blood thirsty up themselves human who thinks they are the better race. What makes us the rightful judge jury and executioners of any animal when if a man rapes a young child he gets 5 years a dog bites someone it gets put down kinda one sided dont you bloody well think *** I do.

So no offence meant to anyone when I say this if any is taken shove it up your you know what and deal with it.

Until you have dealt with a (apparent) dangerous dog keep your mouth shut yeah everyone has an opinion but we dont need to keep hearing it your like a broken bloody record that wont switch off, get over yourself and realise until it happens to you it aint nothing to do with you.

Thank Rant Over Goodnight!!!!!!!

xXx

[Refuse Matt M]

A person never owns a dog it leads it, and I would have no worries actually make that I have no worries about leaving my dog in the same room alone with my children and I actually trust my dog more than I trust humans they dont backstab.


Please, stop comparing dogs to human beings. I realise you might love animals, but it's really not the same thing.

Secondly, you say that you have no worries about leaving your dog alone with your children.
And yet a dog behaviour expert completely disagrees with you:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13544064,00.html

As the expert says, "I am of the school of thought that you should never leave a dog alone with children - of any breed, of any type, They're an animal and it is very hard to gauge how they will react while you are not there.".


I don't profess to know loads about dogs, but when you have an expert telling you you're doing something wrong, then maybe you should listen to them?




So as a parent you probably wouldn't want any people in your home either, right? Cuz just like you said they can 'snap'. probably should destroy anything that's big enough for a kid to choke on too, and hey, I've even seen people choke on food. Only an irresponsible parent would keep food in the same house as a child.

We've already talking about the "snapping at any moment" thing, but what's really getting me is that you're discriminating what dogs are safe around children, based on breed alone. That makes you a doggist in my book, and that ain't cool.


Firstly, just a few more incidents since the main story of Ellie Lawrenson:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13545635,00.html


I don't think you can really compare humans and animals in this situation and I'm surprised anyone seriously would.

Maybe I am a doggist. I don't go around kicking them or anything like that, but I'm just not bothered about them and I'm certainly not a fan of them. The bull-mastiff in work is ok but I'm the only one in the office who refuses to take it out for a walk;)
Pitbulls, rottweilers, dobermans. I'm sorry, but I just can't respect any parent who has a young family and keeps the dogs which have such a long history of violence. Especially when dog experts are telling them not to leave dogs alone with kids.
I'm sure the majority of them don't display any sign of violence at all. And if that's discrimination to dogs (like the dogs care) then I'm sorry.

[Burakiosaurus]

did someone say dangerous dogs ??

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/h/hongkon2.jpg

[Refuse Matt M]

did someone say dangerous dogs ??

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/h/hongkon2.jpg


Never leave Hong Kong Phooey alone with your kids!

[BRM]

According from a very good source of mine the owner of the dog in St Helens will probably be arrested this week due to drug trafficing as well as being part of illegal dog fighting rings.

From what i've been told the dog which was destroyed last week had been pumped with steroids, and had it's ears cut off so that other dogs would not be able to get hold of them.

[Darkstar]

A person never owns a dog it leads it

Want to bet? In the eyes of the law you own the animal.

[ahsatan]

According from a very good source of mine the owner of the dog in St Helens will probably be arrested this week due to drug trafficing as well as being part of illegal dog fighting rings.

From what i've been told the dog which was destroyed last week had been pumped with steroids, and had it's ears cut off so that other dogs would not be able to get hold of them.


Hmmm... If this is the case, then aren't we back to blaming humans? Thought so.

[Taki]

Want to bet? In the eyes of the law you own the animal.

It is impossible to own an animal as animals have free will just like us.

xXx

[Nemesis Enforcer]

It is impossible to own an animal as animals have free will just like us.

xXx
In that case then they are responcible for their actions as are all things with free will, if they bite or maul someone its down to them and them alone

[K.J]

It is impossible to own an animal as animals have free will just like us.

xXx

Sorry but that's a ridiculous thing to say. What about when a farmer goes to an auction and buys a couple of cows, does he not then own those cows? What about a hamster in a cage, does that have free will just like us? Of course people own animals, if your dog decided to piss off tomorrow and live with someone else, I take it you wouldn't stand in it's way because of it's "free will"?

[ahsatan]

Sorry but that's a ridiculous thing to say. What about when a farmer goes to an auction and buys a couple of cows, does he not then own those cows? What about a hamster in a cage, does that have free will just like us? Of course people own animals, if your dog decided to piss off tomorrow and live with someone else, I take it you wouldn't stand in it's way because of it's "free will"?


I have to say, I agree with this. We do own our animals. We are responsible for them and their welfare. If one of my cats wandered of tomorrow, I'd move heaven and earth to find them and bring them home. They do have the free will to do so, but my responsibility to them means I'd bring them right back. They are mine. Just like when they are sick, we take them to the vets and make them better or take the repsonsibility to have them put to sleep. We do own our pets.

[DC]

But Wikipedia is an unreliable source.I wouldn't say it's the most reliable source, but it is far from unreliable.

It is impossible to own an animal as animals have free will just like us.

xXxSlaves had free-will, and they were owned by other humans. I'm not saying that was a good thing, but it is a fact. When you buy/are given an animal, you own it. No ifs or buts, you own that animal and have responsibility over that animal.

If you want to use the argument about dogs (you didn't mention any other animals) having free-will, that's fine. But are you telling me that if a dog attacked one of your kids, mauled them near to death, that you wouldn't have one cross word to say to the owner? After all, the dog had free-will, so what could the owner have done to prevent the attack?

[Taki]

Animals are only able to be "OWNED" because people think thats what they do when they have that animal as part of their family. Does that therefore mean I OWN my children because I actually gave birth to them bought everything for them no it doesn't it means I nurture them and protect them until they can do it for themselves, you cannot own something that has free will, HITLER tried and failed SADDAM tried and failed need I go on humans and animals are the same neither 1 can be owned.

Yes I would have a hell of a lot of harsh words to say to the leader of the dog if one mauled my children the same as I would to the mother of a child who hurt my children, just because someone doesnt own something doesnt mean they are not partially responsible for the actions that thing partakes in.

xXx

[Refuse Matt M]

Animals are only able to be "OWNED" because people think thats what they do when they have that animal as part of their family. Does that therefore mean I OWN my children because I actually gave birth to them bought everything for them no it doesn't it means I nurture them and protect them until they can do it for themselves, you cannot own something that has free will, HITLER tried and failed SADDAM tried and failed need I go on humans and animals are the same neither 1 can be owned.

Yes I would have a hell of a lot of harsh words to say to the leader of the dog if one mauled my children the same as I would to the mother of a child who hurt my children, just because someone doesnt own something doesnt mean they are not partially responsible for the actions that thing partakes in.

xXx



And yet you refuse to acknowledge an experts opinion stating that leaving children alone with ANY dog is a bad thing to do.

The fact that you clearly state that you leave your children alone with a Rottweiler disgusts me.

[DC]

Animals are only able to be "OWNED" because people think thats what they do when they have that animal as part of their family. Does that therefore mean I OWN my children because I actually gave birth to them bought everything for them no it doesn't it means I nurture them and protect them until they can do it for themselves, you cannot own something that has free will, HITLER tried and failed SADDAM tried and failed need I go on humans and animals are the same neither 1 can be owned.So if I came round to your house and took your dog (I wouldn't, but bear with me), that would be okay since you don't own said dog? You are responsible for it, but you don't own it. If I took your dog, I'd still allow you to be responsible for said animal, but as you don't own it, then there would be no problem.

Or if said dog decided for him/herself to wander into my house and live there, you would be okay with that, because the dog has free-will and chose to do so. You don't own the dog, so what claim would you have over it?

[lawrence619]

[QUOTE=Nimf;556159]
Sometimes it doesn't need a smack though-unfortunately, a lot of parents forget to instill in children that some dogs won't be as cute and cuddly as the one they have at home. My ex's parents have a few dogs and they have always been brilliant around my boys. They used to have a sheep dog who would growl if the boys got too feisty with them, as a warning, and they knew to back off. The labrador they have now thinks he's human. But we would never leave the boys unattended just incase. The placidity (is that even a word?!?) of these dogs meant that, when they were younger, i'd have to keep an eye on the boys around strange dogs as they assumed they could just go up to them and cuddle them. The sad thing is, some dogs don't like that.

You've made some very valid points, but being a parent you'll know it's impossible to keep your eyes glued on them the whole time. I have a three year old and i have a dog.

My dog is a terrier cross, he's extremely gentle but when we got him i wouldn't leave my son with him for a second. Despite this there has still been times when my son has managed to pull his tail,grab his face all the usual toddler things.

I wouldn't have blamed our dog if he had nipped him as it's probably in every dog's nature to defend themselves. Luckily he never has. My point is i dont see any problem with people having these kinds of dogs but they are quite clearly not family pets.

At some point no matter how much you watch your child they will manage to antagonise the dog. Now i'm not trying to say every staff or rottweiler [or any other dog that's considered to be a dangerous breed] would attack the child, surely the risk is to great to take these dog's can cause a lot of damage.

Most people pick holidays, cars, and houses that are suitable for there family why can't they do the same with dogs?

[Refuse Matt M]

[QUOTE=Nimf;556159]


I wouldn't have blamed our dog if he had nipped him as it's probably in every dog's nature to defend themselves. Luckily he never has. My point is i dont see any problem with people having these kinds of dogs but they are quite clearly not family pets.




And your dog is a terrier.
Taki is leaving her kids alone with a bloody rottweiler!!!!

[Miss T]

Yeah well Taki is bonkers.. she seems to class humans and animals as the same.. im all against cruelty to animals.. I even give money to the dolphins but Jeez.. we're called HUMANS and not ANIMALS for a reason!

[Nimf]

And your dog is a terrier.
Taki is leaving her kids alone with a bloody rottweiler!!!!
Careful, you misquoted to the extreme there...

[Refuse Matt M]

Careful, you misquoted to the extreme there...



Not really:

Leader of Rottweiler and mother of 2 children
I have no worries about leaving my dog in the same room alone with my children.

[Nimf]

Not really:
No, I mean, re-read what you posted as you posted as me having said I had a terrier, where as it was lawrence619...Have a look at the post before Miss T's.

[Refuse Matt M]

No, I mean, re-read what you posted as you poste as me having said I had a terrier, where as it was lawrence619...Have a look at the post before Miss T's.


Ah right, sorry, got confused for a bit there!

[Darkstar]

Or if said dog decided for him/herself to wander into my house and live there, you would be okay with that, because the dog has free-will and chose to do so. You don't own the dog, so what claim would you have over it?

Free will indicates a sense of moral responsability. Dogs have yet to be proved to have that, only a pack instinct, survival instinct and trained behaviour. In fact as far as I know the only animal to show said moral responsability is the Dolphin.

[Refuse Matt M]

Free will indicates a sense of moral responsability. Dogs have yet to be proved to have that, only a pack instinct, survival instinct and trained behaviour. In fact as far as I know the only animal to show said moral responsability is the Dolphin.


Some people do put animals on the same level as human beings tho.
That's why I hate animal rights protestors so much, especially the ones who are against testing on animals for medical purposes.

And ironically, one of the heads of PETA is diabetic and injects insulin:)

[DC]

Free will indicates a sense of moral responsability. Dogs have yet to be proved to have that, only a pack instinct, survival instinct and trained behaviour. In fact as far as I know the only animal to show said moral responsability is the Dolphin.I agree. I don't think dogs have free-will, but that is what Taki thinks, so I was going with it hypothetically.

[Miss T]

Some people do put animals on the same level as human beings tho.
That's why I hate animal rights protestors so much, especially the ones who are against testing on animals for medical purposes.

And ironically, one of the heads of PETA is diabetic and injects insulin:)

Darling, insulin is MOSTLY made from chemicals nowadays, only people who have depressive reactions to that are on the pig insulin.

[Refuse Matt M]

Darling, insulin is MOSTLY made from chemicals nowadays, only people who have depressive reactions to that are on the pig insulin.


Basically the woman herself admits she is a hypocrite:

"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."


PETA, as an organization, want insulin banned.

Oh, and EVERYONE should watch this. Really shows PETA for what it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ElyZBTN1Y

[Darkstar]

I agree. I don't think dogs have free-will, but that is what Taki thinks, so I was going with it hypothetically.

I know, but I wanted to continue the flow of conversation by quoting Taki and leading a stunted argument. :)

And i belive I started a thread on the PETA woman last year. Just after the thread on foxhunting if memory serves.

[DC]

It's not like she has much of a choice. Take it or die, that's about it. She doesn't say she wouldn't do it another way if there was one, but she has no choice.

And as for you saying you hate animal-rights protesters, that's a very sweeping statement to make. Almost like saying a whole town is "full of tossers" in that fact it tars everyone of those people with the same brush. Are you saying you hate all animal-rights people? If not, then you need to be clearer in your prejudice. I don't like the protesters who want to protect animals but will happily hurt and kill people to do it, but I have no problem with those who just want better treatment for animals.I know, but I wanted to continue the flow of conversation by quoting Taki and leading a stunted argument. :)I only want a stunted argument if it can be performed by Lee Majors as "The Fall Guy", '*** he's the unkown stuntman.

[Refuse Matt M]

It's not like she has much of a choice. Take it or die, that's about it. She doesn't say she wouldn't do it another way if there was one, but she has no choice.

And as for you saying you hate animal-rights protesters, that's a very sweeping statement to make. Almost like saying a whole town is "full of tossers" in that fact it tars everyone of those people with the same brush. Are you saying you hate all animal-rights people? If not, then you need to be clearer in your prejudice. I don't like the protesters who want to protect animals but will happily hurt and kill people to do it, but I have no problem with those who just want better treatment for animals.



If you're against animal testing then you're a hypocrite if you use any kind of medicine that was tested on animals to help yourself.
You can't rant and rave about it, then get ill and go "oh well, i'll use it anyway". It's the correct thing to do, but it is hypocritical, especially as PETA are dead against medicine which has saved millions of human lives.


Ok, I don't hate all animal rights protestors. Hate is too strong a word to apply to all of them.
I do hate the extreme ones. I put them on the same level as pro-lifers.

[DC]

She doesn't have a choice. Okay she technically does...either she chooses to live, or she chooses to die. She can't really win either way, so she may as well live to annoy you if nothing else. Because she has no real choice, does that mean that she should just ignore all animal cruelty? Simply because she needs a product to survive, she should ignore rabbits who have lipstick rubbed in their eyes? You seem to think you have all the answers. But, Bub, you don't even know the questions.

[Darkstar]

It's not like she has much of a choice. Take it or die, that's about it. She doesn't say she wouldn't do it another way if there was one, but she has no choice.

But PETA want to ban this useage. So she is using something that her organisation wants to ban on ethical grounds.

PETA are far from clean anyhow, they sponser two organisations that the FBI have described as terroroists.

[Refuse Matt M]

She doesn't have a choice. Okay she technically does...either she chooses to live, or she chooses to die. She can't really win either way, so she may as well live to annoy you if nothing else. Because she has no real choice, does that mean that she should just ignore all animal cruelty? Simply because she needs a product to survive, she should ignore rabbits who have lipstick rubbed in their eyes? You seem to think you have all the answers. But, Bub, you don't even know the questions.


What's all the 'Bub' about? It's cute, but I don't get it.

Anyway, PETA want to ban ALL things which have been tested on animals.
If she uses insulin, she should not be a spokesperson for PETA! It's ridiculous.

Being a member of PETA isn't just being against cosmetic testing on animals, it's about being against testing on animals for medical research too.

[Miss T]

Thats his little way of really getting under peoples skin when having a debate with them ;)

[Refuse Matt M]

Thats his little way of really getting under peoples skin when having a debate with them ;)


He's not getting under my skin (altho by saying that I'm fully aware it appears that he is!), I was just confused about the consistent use of the word 'Bub'.
I'm aware what it's all about now tho, it's like when I use the word 'son' or 'darling'. Very subtle way of causing irritation on internet forums. A veteran!

[lawrence619]

[QUOTE=Draven Cage;559603]She doesn't have a choice. Okay she technically does...either she chooses to live, or she chooses to die. She can't really win either way, so she may as well live to annoy you if nothing else. Because she has no real choice, does that mean that she should just ignore all animal cruelty?

She doesn't have to ignore it, but to preach about it not only makes her a hypocrite it makes peta lose credibility. It can't be one rule for her and another for everyone else.

[TMJ]

He's not getting under my skin (altho by saying that I'm fully aware it appears that he is!), I was just confused about the consistent use of the word 'Bub'.
I'm aware what it's all about now tho, it's like when I use the word 'son' or 'darling'. Very subtle way of causing irritation on internet forums. A veteran!
Except most of us just ignore you because your opinions are stupid.

I'm not DC's biggest fan, but the guy doesn't need to feel like an internet tough guy by trying to act the moral vendor for society. I know Taki far better than you do, and while her opinion is also arguable, the whole rottweiler deal is really just you overreacting like idiots always do. You're just taking everything at your perceived face value. You might as well just say "white people shouldn't hang around with black people because those crazy blacks are known to kill people".

It's a generalisation, like you;re doing. And it's stupid and thoughtless.

[Refuse Matt M]

Except most of us just ignore you because your opinions are stupid.



Look, I don't agree with much of what you say, but I'm not about to go around saying your opinions are stupid just because I happen to disagree with them.
We're all adults here, and should be able to debate things without calling each other idiots and making silly 'your opinions are stupid' comments.

[DC]

He's not getting under my skin (altho by saying that I'm fully aware it appears that he is!), I was just confused about the consistent use of the word 'Bub'.
I'm aware what it's all about now tho, it's like when I use the word 'son' or 'darling'. Very subtle way of causing irritation on internet forums. A veteran!It's not actually meant to annoy anyone. It's simply a word I use (stolen from Wolverine it may be) in place of a word like "mate" etc.

[Nimf]

Look, I don't agree with much of what you say, but I'm not about to go around saying your opinions are stupid just because I happen to disagree with them.
We're all adults here, and should be able to debate things without calling each other idiots and making silly 'your opinions are stupid' comments.Unless your opinions really ARE stupid...

One thing I have to say for you-you've brought together about 4 or 5 members to agreeing with each other that I NEVER thought would happen. You're building these little bridges without knowing it and I find it rather cute! :)

[Twig]

Miss T... Humans are animals...

But PETA want to ban this useage. So she is using something that her organisation wants to ban on ethical grounds.

PETA just goes too far, and they give animal rights a bad name. It's a shame they're so popular. If they weren't so extreme, ignorant, and generalizing in their ways they could actually perform a service for the betterment of animalkind.

PETA are far from clean anyhow, they sponser two organisations that the FBI have described as terroroists.

I support people which my government have declared as terrorists... but I prefer the term eco-warriors; as defined by Edward Abbey.

[Refuse Matt M]

PETA just goes too far, and they give animal rights a bad name. It's a shame they're so popular. If they weren't so extreme, ignorant, and generalizing in their ways they could actually perform a service for the betterment of animalkind.




Alot of celebrities seem to get involved with PETA. I don't think they honestly know what they are supporting sometimes.

These are just some classic comments, some from PETA, some from other more extreme animal-rights campaigners:


"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.


"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children."
-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA, New York Times, January 14, 1989.


"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."
-Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Human Society of the United States, The Inhumane Society, New York, 1990.



Regan when asked which he would save, a dog or a baby, if a boat capsized in the ocean: "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog."
-Tom Regan, Q&A session following a speech, University of Wisconsin-Madison, October 27, 1989.


"To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off."
- Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman



"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."
-Chris De Rose, Director, Last Chance for Animals



"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."
-Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd. edition, 1990.


"If abandoning animal research means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it ... We have no basic right ... not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to."
-Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1983


"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.


"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership."
-Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997


"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.



"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."
-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA


"Andrew Cunanan, because he got Versace to stop doing fur."
-PETA's David Mathews reply when to Genre request for "Men We Love"


"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997



"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."
-Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader

[Nemesis Enforcer]

These people should have been locked up, plain and simple most were/ probably still are a danger to the public

[Taki]

Nice to know that I'm crazy, sorry already knew that now try telling me something most people dont know about me.

If my dog was a golden retriever would you be making the fuss you are about me leaving my kids with it? Doubt it they are know trustworthy dogs. So are Rottweilers jesus christ I've done a lot of stuff I'd rather not mention (being crazy and all you might be able to guess) to a lot more people than Rottweilers have ever done to kids. I'm more vicious than my dog ever will be.

This is nothing to do with animal rights like some of you have turned it into its about what simple minded bigotted people have to say about stuff they dont understand.

Yes some dogs are dangerous but in comparison to how many people humans kill every day dogs are innocent.

I hear a lot that big dangerous dogs are just a personal image, a persons way of saying look at me I'm hard. I dont need to have my dog to be hard I was hard before I got her I'll still be hard when she's dead. Yes some chav's do have dogs they cant handle and I do agree that people should have to pass a test in order to be able to have a dog (same with kids) but that will never happen.

Big smack of realisation to you all not all Rottweilers sit at the gates of a scrap yard snarling waiting to rip your limbs off. Some are docile calm loving pets, that are no more scary, harmful, and ravenous than most people.

I'd rather trust my dog than trust any of you.

xXx

[Refuse Matt M]

Nice to know that I'm crazy, sorry already knew that now try telling me something most people dont know about me.

If my dog was a golden retriever would you be making the fuss you are about me leaving my kids with it? Doubt it they are know trustworthy dogs. So are Rottweilers jesus christ I've done a lot of stuff I'd rather not mention (being crazy and all you might be able to guess) to a lot more people than Rottweilers have ever done to kids. I'm more vicious than my dog ever will be.

This is nothing to do with animal rights like some of you have turned it into its about what simple minded bigotted people have to say about stuff they dont understand.

Yes some dogs are dangerous but in comparison to how many people humans kill every day dogs are innocent.

I hear a lot that big dangerous dogs are just a personal image, a persons way of saying look at me I'm hard. I dont need to have my dog to be hard I was hard before I got her I'll still be hard when she's dead. Yes some chav's do have dogs they cant handle and I do agree that people should have to pass a test in order to be able to have a dog (same with kids) but that will never happen.

Big smack of realisation to you all not all Rottweilers sit at the gates of a scrap yard snarling waiting to rip your limbs off. Some are docile calm loving pets, that are no more scary, harmful, and ravenous than most people.

I'd rather trust my dog than trust any of you.

xXx



I think everyone knows that not all Rottweilers rip people apart.
But not all paedophiles attack children either. Infact, the majority of paedophiles don't abuse children in any way at all.

This has now even moved on from me thinking leaving your kids with a Rottweiler is wrong, I've already provided views from a dog expert to back my feelings up.
Ofcourse it's entirely up to you how you run your life, but I am slightly disturbed by so many things in this post you have just made.

[Twig]

I think everyone knows that not all Rottweilers rip people apart.
But not all paedophiles attack children either. Infact, the majority of paedophiles don't abuse children in any way at all.

This has now even moved on from me thinking leaving your kids with a Rottweiler is wrong, I've already provided views from a dog expert to back my feelings up.
Ofcourse it's entirely up to you how you run your life, but I am slightly disturbed by so many things in this post you have just made.

And not all rotweilers fantasize about killing random innocent children either... You really need to get over yourself, as all the experts and professionals I've heard from are against categorizing animals by their breed alone.

[Refuse Matt M]

And not all rotweilers fantasize about killing random innocent children either... You really need to get over yourself, as all the experts and professionals I've heard from are against categorizing animals by their breed alone.


If you look back a page or so, the expert I quoted suggested leaving kids alone with ANY breed of dog was wrong.

It's up to the individual, but regardless of what anyone thinks I'd be very wary about leaving kids with certain breeds.
Maybe breeds don't matter, but I wouldn't risk it.

Oh and like with sharks, if one attacks you, go for the eyes.

[DC]

Oh and like with sharks, if one attacks you, go for the eyes.But not all breed of shark attack humans either, but then why let facts get in the way.;)

[Refuse Matt M]

But not all breed of shark attack humans either, but then why let facts get in the way.;)


No, you don't hear of certain breeds of sharks attacking humans. Just as you don't hear of certain breeds of dogs attacking humans.

Personally I don't actually agree that you shouldn't leave a child alone with ANY dog. But I think you have to be a bit of an idiot to leave your dog alone with certain breeds of dogs.
People disagree with that I know, we'll see what the future holds.

[Taki]

I was left alone as a new born baby with dogs and nothing ever happened to me, actually you were more in danger if you came after me than I was with them.

Refuse Matt M you have picked the wrong person to argue black is blue with on this subject. Come back and carry the debate on when you actually have a dog (of any breed) and kids, so you may have a fair understanding of how a well trained family pet is part of the family not just some animal that needs feeding once a day and letting out for a wee.

I'm not saying anyones opinion is worthless far from it, but until you are in the situation where a family member is being slagged off all over the place and you're being called nuts for having it, nevermind allowing it near children, then maybe a little restraint might be held.

Refuse Matt M just to let you know my dog is muzzled at all times when she is out on her leash so is no danger to anyone else either, not that she needs it as she is not part of the dangerous dogs act. When they make her a part she will still wear it, although I think I'd have to take it off for fox hunting. LOL

xXx

[Inno]

I was left alone as a new born baby with dogs and nothing ever happened to me

Apart from when you were dropped on your head anyway...

[Taki]

Apart from when you were dropped on your head anyway...

Nah that didnt happen till I was 11

xXx

[Nicole]

Taki haven't you read the story about the baby who got ripped apart by dogs, and they weren't even left in the same room? She was only a few months old, called Cacey-Lee I think, was asleep, and when the parents heard screams their little girl was locked in the jaws of their family pets. She was mauled to death by what the owners thought were "placid" rottweilers. I think its dangerous to think that dogs are safe with kids, well trained or not.

[ahsatan]

Is that the case in Leicester? If it is, I'm pretty sure it was well reported that they were guard dogs, not placid family pets. There is a difference there.
Personally, I don't think the breed of the dog matters. I was bitten on the face by a pekinese as a baby! Dogs have personalities, some are submissive, others are dominant. Most people are aware of their dog's disposition. Unfortunately, for some, it's too late to see. It's always advisable to exercise caution with dogs and children.

[Nicole]

I dunno, the story that was published by them is that the animals were pets of the bloke. Maybe I read it wrong. Guard dogs or not, you cannot trust animals 100% around children, just as you can't totally trust adults.

[Miss T]

I'm confused.. did my post get deleted or did I just not post it?!

EDIT: looking back Taki's post was deleted also?! It was a joke was it not? hence the :lol

[Darkstar]

According to the edit logs there has been no deleted posts in this thread.

[Nemesis Enforcer]

A 9 year old boy is in hospital after being attacked by three Rottweilers, who chased him into his house.

The pets were meant to be secured in a neighbours kitchen but escaped from the house and attacked the boy in Newcastle-Upon-Lyme, Staffordshire.

His Farther prised open one of the dogs jaws and dragged all three out of the house in Slindon Close, Chesterton.

The victim may need plastic surgery for more then a dozen bite wounds, one of the dogs has been put down.
Just read this today and thought would add it to this thread

[Twig]

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/8-0&fp=45ae6b2bdf5bf79a&ei=4lmuReyzMqaIoALMxpCbAg&url=http%3A//www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-070105cable-worker%2C1%2C3114957.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-news-hed&cid=0

There's an article about a cable television worker charged, for the second time, with murder. I think this is undeniable proof that cable television workers are a dangerous lot, and should all be inhumanely put to death. :roll

[Nemesis Enforcer]

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/8-0&fp=45ae6b2bdf5bf79a&ei=4lmuReyzMqaIoALMxpCbAg&url=http%3A//www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-070105cable-worker%2C1%2C3114957.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-news-hed&cid=0

There's an article about a cable television worker charged, for the second time, with murder. I think this is undeniable proof that cable television workers are a dangerous lot, and should all be inhumanely put to death. :roll
Iditotic argument but I do think anyone who murders someone that isn't self defence should be put to death anyway

Animal or man :xyx

[Twig]

Iditotic argument

Great! You're halfway there! Now, how much more idiotic is my argument than one against the destruction of an entire breed of dog? (If I hear anything more than "not much" you'll be bopped on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.)

[Nemesis Enforcer]

Great! You're halfway there! Now, how much more idiotic is my argument than one against the destruction of an entire breed of dog? (If I hear anything more than "not much" you'll be bopped on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.)
Have I ever called for the 'destruction of an entire breed of dog'? I simply agree that since its ILLEGAL to own certain breeds here in England it is right to enforce it, if you agree with the law or not is irrelavant its a law none the less

All it needs is to not breed anymore of them and there is your 'destruction', in 20 years if no more were bred there would be no more of them, hardly inhumane :)

Its also right to put dogs down if they kill someone or another dog, an animal that has killed not for food becomes de-sensatized to it, so it will have no problem killing again, be it a dog or any other type of animal, that is a scientific fact

[Twig]

Have I ever called for the 'destruction of an entire breed of dog'? I simply agree that since its ILLEGAL to own certain breeds here in England it is right to enforce it, if you agree with the law or not is irrelavant its a law none the less.

All it needs is to not breed anymore of them and there is your 'destruction', in 20 years if no more were bred there would be no more of them, hardly inhumane :)

Its also right to put dogs down if they kill someone or another dog, an animal that has killed not for food becomes de-sensatized to it, so it will have no problem killing again, be it a dog or any other type of animal, that is a scientific fact

So you're just going to mindlessly obey the 'laws' set down by your government then? Sorry, but I don't believe in anything that doesn't innately ring true to myself. There was a time and place when it was illegal to simply be Jewish. Now it's illegal to be a certain kind of dog, which we ourselves created. A bit of an extreme analogy for sure, but not entirely off the point. And where I am, my pitbull is not illegal. If it were ever made illegal would that mean that I would be a bad person if I didn't euthenize my dog? I'd see it as the exact opposite.

I'm actually of the belief that any behavior a dog exibits is trainable and controlable. So like I would ford criminals, I'd favor rehabilitation as opposed to saying simply: Well you're too far gone for us to even try, so we're just going to kill you.

[Nemesis Enforcer]

So you're just going to mindlessly obey the 'laws' set down by your government then? Sorry, but I don't believe in anything that doesn't innately ring true to myself. There was a time and place when it was illegal to simply be Jewish. Now it's illegal to be a certain kind of dog, which we ourselves created. A bit of an extreme analogy for sure, but not entirely off the point. And where I am, my pitbull is not illegal. If it were ever made illegal would that mean that I would be a bad person if I didn't euthenize my dog? I'd see it as the exact opposite.

I'm actually of the belief that any behavior a dog exibits is trainable and controlable. So like I would ford criminals, I'd favor rehabilitation as opposed to saying simply: Well you're too far gone for us to even try, so we're just going to kill you.
I have no problem with you having a pit bull, its legal where you are, but here in England it is not, many don't agree with the fox hunting ban in England but its still a law that has to be obayed

I would not call you a bad person if you didn't put down your dog, after all you had it before any ban came in, if you bought one after it was illegal then I would say you were in the wrong

A taste for killing is not something that can be stopped by training, lions are killed if they are proven man eaters in Africa becuase once they have done it once they will do it again, its the same with all animals, there has been studies for decades about this and all conclude that once an animal has killed, whether it was justafiable or not, it becomes vastly more likely to kill again and again as it then holds no fear, that cannot be trained out.

[Darkstar]

Great! You're halfway there! Now, how much more idiotic is my argument than one against the destruction of an entire breed of dog?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y296/TWOstar/lldestroythedaleks.jpg

Do we have the right to destroy an entire species?

[Twig]

I would not call you a bad person if you didn't put down your dog, after all you had it before any ban came in, if you bought one after it was illegal then I would say you were in the wrong

See, I would say that my government is in the wrong for implacing a stop-cap solution intended to solve the product of a greater problem, and not the actual problem itself, irresponsible dog owners. Be it that they trained their dogs to fight, or that they just don't understand how to raise and nurture their pet.

[DC]

Just read this today and thought would add it to this threadI have a question. If it was three dogs that attacked the boy, yet only one has been put down...how did they decide which dog to destroy? Was the one put down the leader of the pack or something?

[Nimf]

Eenie meenie mini mo??

[Taki]

BIG THING ON THIS. THERE IS NO LAW THAT STATES ROTTWEILERS ARE ILLEGAL TO HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY OR ANY OTHER.

The 2 TRAINED GUARD DOGS that attacked Cacey Lee were not family pets, the 1 that attacked the 5 year old boy was a rescue dog who'd been badly treated, should never have been left alone with a child until full psycho-analisys had been done on the dog.

Ergo the dogs that have attacked shouldn't have been left alone with children because their nature was either know to be aggresive or unknown due to bad treatment. Now put a family pet in either of those positions and see how different things would have turned out a hell of a lot different.

Obviously I will defend Rottweilers I have one have had 2 in the past and will be getting another when I have the space, but I will say that like any other animal they can flip for reasons we will never know JUST LIKE HUMANS. They end up dead for killing a child IAN HUNTLEY IS STILL ALIVE IN PRISON fir killing 2 whats more calous the premeditated murder of 2 girls or the bad mooded Rottwieler who just snapped. Huntley will get out and who knows he might be reformed, he'll probably kill again though but guess what? HE WONT DIE FOR IT.

Humans are far worse in their crimes than any animal if we go by everything thats been said on here.

The day every human that kills someone dies will be the day I agree with a dog being put down for killing someone until then well I'll be sitting here deffending a majority of innocent dog against biggoted ideas that all dogs are killers.

xXx

[Nemesis Enforcer]

I have a question. If it was three dogs that attacked the boy, yet only one has been put down...how did they decide which dog to destroy? Was the one put down the leader of the pack or something?
If I worked in animal control I would give you an answer but I have no idea why just the one was put down DC :)

Taki - I have stated previously that I think all HUMANS who murder (not kill in self defence) should be sentanced to death as should all animal's that kill a human :xyx

[DC]

TRAINED GUARD DOGS[/B] that attacked Cacey Lee were not family pets, the 1 that attacked the 5 year old boy was a rescue dog who'd been badly treated, should never have been left alone with a child until full psycho-analisys had been done on the dog.How do you psycho-analyse a dog? Does the animal sit on a couch? Do you show it flash-cards and ask what it sees? Do you ask if he ever felt loved by his mother?

[Darkstar]

How do you psycho-analyse a dog? Does the animal sit on a couch? Do you show it flash-cards and ask what it sees? Do you ask if he ever felt loved by his mother?

No, she was a bitch.

[Twig]

How do you psycho-analyse a dog? Does the animal sit on a couch? Do you show it flash-cards and ask what it sees? Do you ask if he ever felt loved by his mother?

It is possible to decipher a dogs personality and mental status without talking to them. Things like observing subtle behaviors and reactions to different stimulations. Will they growl when you approach them as they eat? Does the hair stand up on their back when they hear another dog barking? Do they try to attack an umbrella when it's opened?

[Taki]

How do you psycho-analyse a dog? Does the animal sit on a couch? Do you show it flash-cards and ask what it sees? Do you ask if he ever felt loved by his mother?

I dont bloody know do I. How do you psycho analyse 2 mute twins after they burn down a school I dont know the answer to that either but I know that some how local authorities done it down here.

xXx

[Darkstar]

Wasnt that the basis for the Manics song 'Tsunami'?

[Refuse Matt M]

Wasnt that the basis for the Manics song 'Tsunami'?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_and_Jennifer_Gibbons


'Disco dancing with the rapists', great line.

[Darkstar]

Good God, I know too much about the Manics. :P