Do we need a national Ban on Pit Bulls? Baby mauled by two pit bulls.

[IreneAdler]

yes, I can buy a shark and keep it wherever I please. It's perfectly legal. So is keeping a pit bull anywhere on my property I please.

the reality is that people need to respect other people's animals, and the person who is responsible for the animal needs to be held to the law if it hurts someone.

if you break onto someone's property and are hurt by their animal shame on you
if you're allowed on someone's property and allowed to touch the animal and are hurt shame on them

 

[shinbits]

In the UK if I can obtain a shark then I can keep it as a pet, I know several people who have "small" sharks in large tanks. Usually enthusiasts, tank busters are a specialist hobby. Not many people get hurt because most people are not silly enough to treat a shark with any less respect than it deserves.

I wasn't clear enough, and cleared up what I meant in an earlier post. I meant that sharks shouldn't be kept as pets in pools where people swim. Likewise, pits shouldn't be kept as pets where people roam around normally.

 

[shinbits]

yes, I can buy a shark and keep it wherever I please. It's perfectly legal. So is keeping a pit bull anywhere on my property I please.

the reality is that people need to respect other people's animals, and the person who is responsible for the animal needs to be held to the law if it hurts someone.

if you break onto someone's property and are hurt by their animal shame on you
if you're allowed on someone's property and allowed to touch the animal and are hurt shame on them

what "disrespect" was shown to the pits that maimed the baby for life?

 

[overit]

okay, how much of that behavior is unprovoked dog bite and how much of that is provoked.
should we ban sharks? lol. they're dangerous. they're prone to bite people... yeah, if you stick your hand in their face. but people aren't dumb enough to do that with sharks.... but they are with dogs. lol

why don't people treat animals with respect? they just want to blame the animal... why not just blame the people who own them or those who choose to harass them?

It can be unprovoked-prey instinct...same with presa canarios, dogos, etc...and again I don't support "bans" of the breed at all, even though I can fully recognize that some dog breeds ARE naturally more agressive then others. Not all children, adults maimed are harassing the pets...they're animals-they can act like animals, and they can be particularly agressive depending on the breed.

As an example-I won't place a cat and a lynx in the same category and claim they are "naturally non-agressive" because it's cow manure lol.

 

[IreneAdler]

what "disrespect" was shown to the pits that maimed the baby for life?

it was shown by the owner of the dogs not controlling it. it was the OWNERS fault, not the dogs

 

[overit]

The source does not sound very unbiased


Facts are facts. Except when they're not. Many dogs are labelled pitbulls because they have a bullish look and stocky frame, it's caused many innocent and loveable family pets in the UK to be put down despite owners providing evidence of them being perfectly legal family pets. It is distressing enough when your dog bites someone and has to be put down regardless of the circumstances, but when all it takes is someone maliciously informing the police that you own a pitbull, for them to be dragged away, held in kennels and having to rely on someone pointing out that your dog is not a danger to society and cannot be determined to be of pitbull type. For many of these breeds the dog only has to look vaguely like them in order to be judged as one. People report more large dog bites because they're viewed as far more serious than those delivered by small dogs, some small dog owners are awful for not only encouraging their dog to bite but laughing it off as a game. Most people will ignore a snarling little dog but a snarling big dog gets reported for being dangerous.

The "source" and stats can be found anywhere-...."malicious" informing, "more reporting", all personal opinion really...or can you show me some "stats" on this?

I don't support bans, nor "putting down" innocent animals at all-whether they are agressive or not (unless they have attacked someone in a vicious/fatal way), in fact I would prefer if they were just taken in by a rescue and let live the rest of their lives...not their fault we brought them into existence in the first place....

BUT...again my whole argument is that people "deny" these dogs are any more agressive then other breeds.

 

[IreneAdler]

the reality is that it's not the animal that's the responsible party nor the animal that should be held responsible or banned or whatever. people should be held responsible, not animals. Animals shouldn't be banned, or killed off as a breed simply because of stupid humans. Sorry.

 

[overit]

it was shown by the owner of the dogs not controlling it. it was the OWNERS fault, not the dogs

Ok-say the dogs never attacked anyone before-never behave agressive...then suddenly did...that happens, a lot, to more then one breed of dog also...sometimes they "snap", sometimes their prey instinct kicks in for whatever reason.

That's now the owners disrespecting anyone or being solely to blame though.

 

[overit]

the reality is that it's not the animal that's the responsible party nor the animal that should be held responsible or banned or whatever. people should be held responsible, not animals. Animals shouldn't be banned, or killed off as a breed simply because of stupid humans. Sorry.

I agree they shouldn't be banned or killed off girl, totally!

 

[pgp_protector]

That's only because there are WAY more people roaming around freely than pitbulls. In fact, there are WAY more people than pitbulls, period. When's the last time you saw a group of pitbulls in the mall or a parking lot or dark alley way?

That's what I thought.

The average person isn't someone to be afraid of. The average pitbull is.

Last weekend, you thought wrong.

 

[IreneAdler]

Yup. Because they're the owner. Same as if you're driving a car and it malfunctions and you wreck YOU are responsible for the bills of the people in your car.

 

[shinbits]

the reality is that it's not the animal that's the responsible party nor the animal that should be held responsible or banned or whatever. people should be held responsible, not animals. Animals shouldn't be banned, or killed off as a breed simply because of stupid humans. Sorry.

then how about tougher restrictions on pits? just like how Sigfried & Roy own a tiger, but are not allowed to take that tiger into a public place, nor be kept in a place where it could possibly come into contact with another person accidently.... maybe the same should be done with pits.

in that case, I'd be fine with pitbull ownership.

 

[shinbits]

Last weekend, you thought wrong.

notice how in that post I said "roaming around freely", right? were those dogs unleashed and walking around however they pleased? learn to pay attention to what you read.

so as it stands, I thought correctly.

 

[IreneAdler]

responsible dog ownership is not legislating the death out of everything

 

[overit]

Yup. Because they're the owner. Same as if you're driving a car and it malfunctions and you wreck YOU are responsible for the bills of the people in your car.

A car is not naturally agressive-a car is an object, an animal is a living, breathing being, capable of violence...even if we consider it property just like we would a car. Apples/oranges

 

[shinbits]

responsible dog ownership is not legislating the death out of everything

wait...so you believe that owners of tigers are being legislated to death, because of the laws? you'd prefer they'd be treated with the same freedom as a weiner dog? because if so, there'd be even more deaths if things went your way.

 

[IreneAdler]

dogs that are well maintained by the owner are not naturally aggressive (because prey drive isn't there in most breeds unless they are prey driven breeds and if it IS a prey driven breed then the OWNER should deal with the prey drive - hence a well maintained dog - responsible dog ownership... what part of this term is so hard to understand... its more than feeding and watering a dog)

 

[IreneAdler]

wait...so you believe that owners of tigers are being legislated to death, because of the laws? you'd prefer they'd be treated with the same freedom as a weiner dog? because if so, there'd be even more deaths if things went your way.

DOG not tiger DOG... dogs are able to be domesticated
tigers aren't

 

[pgp_protector]

notice how in that post I said "roaming around freely", right? were those dogs unleashed and walking around however they pleased? learn to pay attention to what you read.

so as it stands, I thought correctly.

No, you stated

That's only because there are WAY more people roaming around freely than pitbulls.

<-- See that, that's a peroid

In fact, there are WAY more people than pitbulls, period.

and another one.

When's the last time you saw a group of pitbulls in the mall or a parking lot or dark alley way?

Now the question (amazing isn't it)



Now if you had asked "When was the last time I saw a group of pitbulls roaming around in a parking lot?" you might have a point, but unfortunately that isn't what you asked.

 

[overit]

Well can we legislate responsible pet ownership??? No...same as proper parenting..so thereforth the question becomes what to do about overly agressive dogs?

We can't/shouldn't ban, we can't legislate proper raising/ownership...so what's the solution?

Realistically -most dogs ARE naturally agressive-it's inborn...in all breeds-some more predisposition to it then others-it's the "domestication", training and ownership that have worked to CURB the animals natural instinct to go after prey, attack, defend, etc....

Why do we keep saying they are not "naturally" agressive, their canines....origins from wild animals-they ARE naturally agressive, territorial, instinctive hunters, protectors of their own, etc...at their very base they are predators.

http://www.dog-training-academy.com/news/canine-instincts.htm