gooeydog Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Suuuure :roll: Advocates for themselves and their own personal agendas... http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/2802 Quote
behle Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Where does this person get their information? Pit bulls were only created in the last century for the underground dog-fighting business. Legislators must realize that outlawing the breeding of these dogs is no more unfair than outlawing the owning of assault weapons. In Vancouver, the breeds of choice for heartless homeowners, car lots, body shops, and grow-ops, are Rottweilers and German shepherds, dangerous when desocialized because of their size and because they have been bred to protect, but if socialized young and treated humanely, they are not inherently high risk. But Vancouver has a lot of miserable pit bulls living in yards and in cages too and they are inherently high risk. So after they rid the world of all evil, nasty pits.....will they start in on the not inherently risky rottie and GSDs too? I think that is their agenda! Quote
Guest Anonymous Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 I am sorry but I think you need to read a little better. He did state: "dangerous when desocialized because of their size and because they have been bred to protect, but if socialized young and treated humanely, they are not inherently high risk. " This is what we say everyday. All breeds have the ability to become dangerous if desocialized. I dont necessarily agree with BSL but dont act like he doesn't at least understand the value of socialization. What he is saying is the ownership population of pits in their area, is overwhelmingly irresponsible. It is easier for them to push BSL than it is to educate these owners. Not making excuses for him but be sure to read the whole article for what it is, dont take it out of context. Quote
gooeydog Posted June 25, 2003 Author Posted June 25, 2003 Read it again Marysmomma... the person said that rotties and GSDs are NOT inherently "high risk", and that their problem stems from neglect/lack of socialization, then goes on to say that pit bulls ARE inherently "high risk". Implying that while good care/socialization will ensure that "other" breeds that are considered "dangerous" by some will end up not being "high risk", there is nothing that can be done for pit bulls, because they are inherently dangerous and "high risk". This is not the first time they've spoken out for BSL and breed bans, and after reading some of their other pieces, it may be more clear to you what their position is on pit bulls. This was from several months ago... http://forum.dogomania.com/viewtopic.php?t=4612 Quote
behle Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Wow! Next time I will definately mind my own business. I feel like I've been put in a "down - stay"! :o I did read the entire article carefully. :-? Quote
Guest Anonymous Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 I guess it is a matter of perception. It always amazes me how each person reads something and gets something different out of it. I did not take it to mean that GSD's and Rotties are different, but rather the same. I thought he was using them as a comparison. I think too many of people jump to irrational conclusions everytime they hear the word ban or BSL. I took the article to mean that the breed is not inherently dangerous, but rather in the circumstances they are left in Vancouver they have become dangerous. Quote
Guest Anonymous Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Sorry Behle. Dont feel like that. I think maybe my tone came across different than intended. I just wish everyone didn't automatically assume that people that propose or advocate BSL are horrible people. I dont agree with them but maybe they are just uneducated. Why do we torture ourselves with this debate over and over? Quote
behle Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Today has been a difficult day, Marysmomma. I shouldn't have reacted so strongly to your post. I got some bad news (not related to doggies) this morning and was extra sensitive.. :cry: Normally I am very rational and slow to jump to conclusions. I think people have strong feelings about the issue because they feel passionately about it. So after reflecting upon it, I'm going to leave this discussion to others from now on. I think part of the issue for me is the gradual erosion of individual rights and freedom to make personal choices across our societies - this a huge concern; are those in charge of the rules effective in balancing laws for common good without stifling free choice? We are losing our sense of fair play and common sense! :( Quote
courtnek Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Mary, Behle, REALIZE that the reason they want to ban Pit's is an "easy" solution. so much easier, neater, than enforcing laws to FORCE OWNERS TO CARE - force them to have their dogs trained, force them to realize that this breed CAN BE DANGEROUS IF NOT RAISED PROPERLY. FORCE them to be responsible owners..bottom line... they want to blame the dogs, not the owners, for the bad things they do. The "owners" cant be responsible, they're PEOPLE - these are just dogs. and laws are easier to pass about dogs.....this is what we have to fight, continously..... It just MAKES ME SICK.... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Quote
gooeydog Posted June 26, 2003 Author Posted June 26, 2003 Even after rereading the article several times, trying to see where I may have misunderstood something somewhere, it still reeks of anti-pit bull sentiment. There are so many mistruths in it that it's hard to know where to begin... This is what pit bulls are deliberately bred to do, attack without provocation, hang on to the death Since they're referencing an article about a dog attack for this quote, it should be pointed out that until the past 20 or so years, pit bulls were bred to be the exact opposite of the description above (at least in their mannerism towards people, which is what the article was about anyway), and even now, the majority of pit bulls are NOT dogs who will "attack without provocation", but instead usually will not bite/attack without MORE provocation than many other breeds. Yes, there are "freaks" out there which have no problem biting a person, but they are by far the minority, and these "freaks" can and do occur in every breed. Also, they make note in their post of how pit bulls "hang on to the death", which proved NOT to be the case in this attack, where two children were able to scare/"manhandle" the dog off of their friend. To deny pit bulls' genetically-determined behaviour is irrational, and legislators should not be influenced by irrational people. Nor should they be listening to "experts" and trainers with markets to protect who soft-pedal the danger so they won't offend any potential customers. The above statement just SCREAMS ignorance, bias, and closed mindedness to me. I love the way anyone who disagrees with them is either a (to quote them) "not too bright controller", or has an ulterior motive such as protecting their "market" (whatever that may be). And pit bulls are extremely muscular with unnaturally powerful jaws Unaturally powerful jaws, huh? Bet they pulled that right off the cover of The Globe :lol: :roll: Pit bulls were only created in the last century for the underground dog-fighting business Hmm... that would mean they've only been around since after 1903.... too bad there are historical references to the breed that go back past the mid 1800s, not to mention that they were first accepted into a kennel club in the 1890s. They're also wrong in stating that they were bred for the "underground dog fighting business". Dog fighting was an accepted sport when the breed was brought to the US, though that wasn't the breed's only purpose. Legislators must realize that outlawing the breeding of these dogs is no more unfair than outlawing the owning of assault weapons. Ahh yes... the PETA solution.... outlaw breeding until they're extinct. What breeds will they kill off next after the APBTs are gone? After that? And no civilized society should permit the suffering that pit bulls are subjected to. So in order to end the suffering pit bulls are subject to, we are to let them all die out so there are no more that will suffer.... see above (about other breeds). They are beaten and isolated to make them tough. They are kept in pens and on chains and isolated from all other animals because of their strong prey drive. They are dumped at pounds and SPCAs when their brainless owners tire of them once the macho appeal has worn off, where they are killed. It is not only the danger to children that some breeds pose that AAS objects to - it is the suffering of fighting and protection breed dogs that makes us equally angry. And we're actually supposed to believe that A. outlawing the breeding and/or ownership of "pit bulls" would stop these problems (and that the "brainless owners" wouldn't find another breed to inflict abuse/suffering onto... after all, if they can't "love" another breed, they shouldn't have a dog)... and B. that AAS really cares about the "suffering of fighting and protection breed dogs"?? Of course not every pit bull is true to its breeding, and some are perfectly nice dogs - but they weren't bred to be nice and the risk is too high. The first half of this statement could be made true if they changed it around a bit to "Of course not every pit bull is true to its breeding, and some are NOT nice dogs"... the second part is completely false (considering that I'm speaking (typing?) only in the context of HUMAN aggression in APBTs, not DOG aggression). It's also interesting to note that they have compliments from Ingrid Newkirk; the president of PETA on their site... she wrote an eerily similar "letter" to the world several years ago on the subject of pit bulls. http://community-2.webtv.net/PRECIOUSFORD/IngridNewkirkPETA/ Here's another on pit bulls by a PETA member http://www.peta.org/liv/c/tragedy.html Another about how BSL can be a "important tool in preventing the tragic exploitation of these breeds" http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsc19.html And the statement we were disagreeing on earlier, this is how I read it... "the breeds of choice for heartless homeowners, car lots, body shops, and grow-ops, are Rottweilers and German shepherds, dangerous when desocialized because of their size and because they have been bred to protect, but if socialized young and treated humanely, they are not inherently high risk. But Vancouver has a lot of miserable pit bulls living in yards and in cages too and they are inherently high risk. Inherently IMO is a tendency brought on by genetics... to me they're saying that rotties/GSDs are NOT inherently dangerous, but are made so by poor treatment... pit bulls ARE inherently dangerous, no matter how they're treated. Quote
imported_nea Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 I just have one question. That article or whatever it was said "They are kept in pens and on chains and isolated from all other animals because of their strong prey drive". I read somewhere that they are supposed to be really good with other animals. Is that true or not? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.