Page 28 of 38 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 373

Thread: OMG my next door neighbor has bought a red nosed pit bull!!!!

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    What on earth does this have to do with nanny state or overprotected kids? You're just arguing for the sake of it now. This discussion is going nowhere.

    If you have to use the much overused and misused term nanny state, it would apply to taking dogs away from their owners because they look like APBTs and therefor might possibly, in some circumstances, maybe bite someone. Which of course is bullshit.

    It drives me mad though that there are so many here who won't admit that there is a big difference between owning a big dog and owning a little dog. It has absolutely nothing to do with breed.

  2. #272

    Default

    Actually I prefer not argue if I can help it Beloz , as has been stated , this is a polite debate , lets keep it that way.

    Of course its about breed if you are going to refer 'little' dogs to 'big' dogs.
    And yes, it does pander to a 'nanny' state ( over used in your opinion - I try to use sparingly) as in people seeing that 'little' dogs are less a threat,less a cost and now less a responsibility than 'big' dogs. It has flown around certain state and local council before that a law should be brought in restricting all dogs over a certain weight , effectively wiping out the 'big' breeds.

    Now whilst many may see this as highly unlikely , i do not.
    There are sillier laws in place all over the country.Government are getting more and more trigger happy as BSL fails to give the voters what they want , less dog attacks of course , something we the dog community and of course those with an ounce of common sense already knew beforehand.

    2 breeds have been banned from Australia.
    Out west at Dubbo , you are not allowed to own a dog over 14/15 kg I think it is ( dont quote me on exact weight) within town limits of hunting looks or origin.

    Of course we are pandering to a nanny state , people are scared of anything that is above their shin and we have a government happy to feed that fear .

    What are you going to say when the majority of people own 'small' dogs , believing that they wont bite and even if they do there is a lesser penalty for smaller dogs anyway ?

    I didn't mention the APBT by the way , this debate is relevant to any number of larger breeds.
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    What on earth does this have to do with nanny state or overprotected kids? You're just arguing for the sake of it now. This discussion is going nowhere.

    If you have to use the much overused and misused term nanny state, it would apply to taking dogs away from their owners because they look like APBTs and therefor might possibly, in some circumstances, maybe bite someone. Which of course is bullshit.

    It drives me mad though that there are so many here who won't admit that there is a big difference between owning a big dog and owning a little dog. It has absolutely nothing to do with breed.
    Hi Beloz,

    I have to disagree with you here; this issue has its roots in the nanny state mentality. Just to make sure we are discussing the same issue, my understanding of 'nanny state' is fairly similar to Wikipedia's definition:

    Nanny state is a term of British origin (and primary use) that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.
    So, I think that our Australian governments (both federal and state) are wanting to appear to be protective of us by enacting legislation that "appears" to make us all safer by identifying and legislating against the dog breeds that the governments (and the media) have selected as being dangerous. I do not think that I am misusing the term 'nanny state' here. I believe that by enacting breed specific legislation our governments are being overly protective and interfering with our personal choice.

    Let's not forget that our governments always say that these anti dog breed laws are to protect our children so this is all about over-protected kids.

    And yes, size (as always) does matter LOL! I do not think anyone on this thread would dispute that the bigger the dog, the bigger the potential bite. However, all us dog owners have the responsibility to ensure that our individual dogs do not not bite humans or attack other dogs. Therefore, the responsibility is equal on all of us, no matter the size of our individual dogs. To argue otherwise is to put forward the proposition that bites and dog attacks by small dogs are in some way more acceptable; they are not. No dog should bite humans or attack other dogs. When I say 'attack other dogs' I am not talking about the minor argy bargy that dogs use to establish dominance; I mean serious attacks where one or both dogs ends up injured and needs veterinary attention.

    You say that
    You're just arguing for the sake of it now
    I could say the same about you; you say this is nothing to do with breed but then you say that big dogs are more of a problem than small dogs. So your arguement does come back to breed, don't you think?

    The reality is that we all have (or should have) an equal legal responsility to ensure that our dogs behave acceptably. That is not anything to do with their size; it is all about the dog's behaviour.

    cheers,

    ricey
    The APBT is the best of the best dogs (but it is just a dog, like any other breed of dog)

    My avatar? It's a pit bull in a poodle suit (a bit like me really)

  4. #274

    Default

    Some of this may be off topic other sections not so much. I havent been in direct contact or knowledge of any kind of ban or legislation before.

    my comparatives ....

    Whether the dog is large, small or tiny they all own a set of teeth that can inflict damage (pierce skin tear tissue and make you bleed) now its like on bee sting to one hundred bee stings if you have one tiny dog bite you to a very large capable powerful breed bite you.
    They do have different instincts their weight also make it harder to gain control. the next part is that certain breeds need very demanding training within their first few years of life.
    Some dogs need it far more then others.
    Dogs attacking humans is sits squarly on the person who has handled the particular animal who as brought it up and trained it. a dog only does what it knows. same as a small human child or a horse.
    There should be laws in place for THE HUMAN not the particular animal. what ever breed it may be it doesnt matter. if a staffy or pitbull cross derivative what ever you want to call it (that is under legislation or the ban) just as much as terrorises or chases another human or animal it falls on the ground of a fine as the person does not have complete control.
    Why is it segregated to only a few types of breeds. why cant we have this across the board. As i said before every single dog is capable of causing physical harm.

    in respect to a dog being a dog killer/attacker as i know some neighbourhoods have a dog like this in their area, there should be something in place for this also. an animal who suffers trauma and pain because of the HUMANS negligance is the HUMANS fault. fine the owner do something to the owner. sometimes animals have to be destroyed for their own safety as well as everyone who is in its space. i dont consider it a bad choice however i dont see why the person who had put the dog in a situation like this does not get reprimanded for this.

  5. #275

    Default

    I have met many Staffies that are loving, calm, social dogs. However, due to stories and problems in the papers, they seem to have a raw deal and frankly, it’s just not fair.
    We are a nation of dog lovers, yet Staffordshire Bull Terriers seem to be unloved by our society.

    Past stories have given people the impression they aren’t safe around children. However, this is completely not the case as they have been recommended as one of only two breeds that are safe around children. Physically, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are strong animals with a muscle physique. They have a strong physical resemblance to Pit Bull Terriers, which are dangerous dogs and it is illegal to own or breed them in the UK.

    We have to remember that dogs evolved from wolves; they have teeth and will use them if they feel threatened. There have been report of attacks on humans from Labradors and Jack Russell Terriers, but you wouldn’t consider them a danger to have in your house with a child.

    Staffordshire Bull Terriers have become known for having owners that use them to look “hard”. The stereotypical owner of this breed is a yob that gets into fights and uses the dog as a threat, and would set the dog on them if they got into a fight. This leads to many dog fights between two owners who dislike each other, they use their dogs in disputes. Because of their strength many Staffies are used in illegal dog fights and they often come out badly injured. Really, most dogs of this breed are calm and aren’t aggressive but because of this sport and using them as protection, they have a bad reputation. These owners encourage the dogs to be aggressive and build up their jaw strength by teaching them to hang on to sticks.

    Because of the way they look and their trait of protection, Staffordshire Bull Terriers
    are in high demand. Buying a pure breed, pedigree Staffie can be very expensive. This has started a trend in home breeding to make quick cash. Over and inter breeding like this can cause psychological problems for the dog. It’s the same as with humans; if a brother and sister mate, the offspring is likely to have disabilities.

    In the past few years, many Staffies have dumped into rescue homes by owners because of a belief that they have an aggressive character. For the most part a dog will misbehave or have violent tendencies if it has been mistreated or badly trained and this tends to be the fault of the owner. With any dog, if it isn’t trained properly from puppy hood, the chances are that it could develop dangerous characteristics, especially when the owners encourage their dogs to fight to make them look macho.

    I think that all dogs potentially have a violent characteristic I love them but they can be dangerous. To stereotype a Staffordshire Bull Terriers isn’t fair as the majority of them aren’t violent and are loving instead. When a dog attacks someone it’s not the dog’s fault, it’s the owner’s and people should consider this before labelling a dog as dangerous.


    PLEASE can we stop this arguement. its petty. everyone has different views. no one will be satisfied admit defeat or that you all agree to disagree?




    horsequote.jpg

  6. #276

    Default

    Why do some of you want it shut down for?
    If you'e not happy in the thread then just don't pop in here.

    We have been meandering along in a civil manner , some of us enjoy debate,opinions that differ from our own....and sometimes to learn or educate.


    Oh and reneighb ? You should put the reference link wherever you are using such a large amount of text. In this case , http://glipho.com/emily/the-misunder...-bull-terriers
    Last edited by ChoppaChop; 12-25-2012 at 01:17 AM.
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    The thing that intrigues me is how many people think that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a large dog. It is not. Historically the APBT often weighed in at under 30lbs (less than 14 kilos) and even today the United Kennel Club puts the desirable weight of a male APBT as being between 35lbs and 60lbs (thats just under 16kg to just over 27kg). A female APBT should be 30lbs to to 50lbs (thats around 13.5kg to around 22.7kg). That is less (a lot less) than the average cattle dog.

    We are not talking here about big dogs. Or at least, we shouldn't be. However, bad breeding by bad breeders has led to big dogs that that are outside of the breed standard for size and weight. We now get the hippotamus pit bulls and AmStaffs that weigh 40kg or more. These are not good examples of this breed. So, if all the pit bull breeders got all ethical all of a sudden and started to breed 40lbs (18kg) male pit bulls and 35lbs (16kg) female pit bulls, would our society's problem with pit bulls just diasappear? They'd be small (ish) dogs after all? Probably not.

    I'd bet that even if the average pit bull weighed in at 10kg, they'd still be considered a problem. I think the problem is the name "pit" bull terrier and nothing will change for the American Pit Bull Terrier until they get a name change.

    And isn't that such a steaming pile of horse shit? Their name is their problem.

    "Whats in a name, Romeo? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" (Romeo & Juliet; II, ii, 1-2. W. Shakespeare)

    As I mentioned previously, less than 1% of American Pit Bull Terriers ever saw the inside of the pit at the height of when dog fighting was popular a 100 years ago. So, the great majority of American Pit Bull Terriers were never schooled for the pit. But that is what everyone remembers them for. So lets dump "pit" from their name. When we do, the morons that we elect to our governments and the morons who write for our daily papers will have to find a new target.

    Why don't they target feral cats FFS!? Surely there'd be a bigger benefit in that?

    regards,

    ricey
    The APBT is the best of the best dogs (but it is just a dog, like any other breed of dog)

    My avatar? It's a pit bull in a poodle suit (a bit like me really)

  8. #278
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reneighb View Post
    I have met many Staffies that are loving, calm, social dogs. However, due to stories and problems in the papers, they seem to have a raw deal and frankly, it’s just not fair.
    We are a nation of dog lovers, yet Staffordshire Bull Terriers seem to be unloved by our society.


    PLEASE can we stop this arguement. its petty. everyone has different views. no one will be satisfied admit defeat or that you all agree to disagree?




    horsequote.jpg
    You are right; it is not fair. I love staffies; sheesh, I'll go further and say that I love dogs. I actually love dogs a lot more than I love most humans.

    But what is fair in our society? Not much at last count.

    PLEASE can we stop this arguement. its petty. everyone has different views. no one will be satisfied admit defeat or that you all agree to disagree?
    Nope; sorry, but you are wrong here; it is not petty and it needs to be thrashed out. Having different views or opposing arguements is not a bad thing. If we meekly agreed with eachother we'd just be vermin.

    ricey
    The APBT is the best of the best dogs (but it is just a dog, like any other breed of dog)

    My avatar? It's a pit bull in a poodle suit (a bit like me really)

  9. #279

    Default

    You're dead right Ricey.
    Size issues is one of the biggest reasons we have for wrongly identifying any dog in an attack.
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    I'm unsure why you seem so panicked about this? Pitbulls are no different to other dogs in that they will need training and socialising to make sure they have a happy life and don't cause trouble.

    Sounds like both you and your neighbors have some learning to do...

    Advise them to take the dog to a reputable dog training club where they will be able to get all the advice and help they need.
    That is an interesting point of view. Most of the facts that I have read state that they are probably the most agressive and lethal canine: Pit bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I personally have no major issue with them. They are an animal. No different to a lion or an elephant. I just think that we need to take extreme caution with this species of canine, training, more training, proper breeding, raising them in non violent environments etc.

    But to deny the facts is a little bit backwards dont you think?
    Last edited by goindeep; 12-29-2012 at 06:19 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •