I read it. It has many statements of doubt such as "naturally agressive behavior" and "if properly socialized".

 

It's like this. Everytime we see a pitbull/child confrontation on the news, they have some owner expressing surprise because the dog was "just a big baby, never displayed aggression before now, etc. etc." It's this simple. If you want a dog that is sweet, a big baby, a good watch dog, easy to train, whatever, there are dozens of breeds to select from that do not have the inherent risk factor that is bred into these dogs. As I said earlier, unless one wants a dog to fight in the pits, any trait you find desirable in these dogs can be found in another breed.

 

These dogs (like all others) are a man-made breed. They are not a separate species and wiping out the entire breed would not be a loss to nature. There is no reason for this dog to exist.

I read it. It has many statements of doubt such as "naturally agressive behavior" and "if properly socialized".

 

It's like this. Everytime we see a pitbull/child confrontation on the news, they have some owner expressing surprise because the dog was "just a big baby, never displayed aggression before now, etc. etc." It's this simple. If you want a dog that is sweet, a big baby, a good watch dog, easy to train, whatever, there are dozens of breeds to select from that do not have the inherent risk factor that is bred into these dogs. As I said earlier, unless one wants a dog to fight in the pits, any trait you find desirable in these dogs can be found in another breed.

 

These dogs (like all others) are a man-made breed. They are not a separate species and wiping out the entire breed would not be a loss to nature. There is no reason for this dog to exist.

I appreciate your input. :thumb:

However I need data that backs all that up.

I am trying to understand the move of the Commission to make a drastic decision.

 

I am not defending the pitbull nor am I wanting it banned, I am trying to have an open mind of all of this.

 

I mentioned earlier I was attacked at a young age by a coon dog.

My spouse one time suffered a severe bite by a chiuaha (sp?)...

 

Isn't the man made breed the crossovers of a perfect breed of what ever they are trying to achieve? Man has made the dog mean?

 

My whole point here is, if they ban a breed of dog, what is next?

Something they see as a problem, instead of enforcing rules they have they just put out a ban?

 

Is this really constitutional?

 

Who else has this in their town?

 

I really would like answers that anyone could give me on that.

I am glad you are agreeing with me that certain breeds of dogs should be illegal, the SAME as it is ILLEGAL to run a RED LIGHT!:thumb:

 

That is obviously NOT what I am agreeing with. What car is it illegal to own? They can all be VERY dangerous weapons. If is the irresponsibility of the driver that is the real culprit.

 

The wreckless driver, the wreckless gun owner and the wreckless pet owner are the ones that need to serve time. NOT those of use that are responsible with these things that some don't want to have because they are viewed as dangerous.

 

Oh...by the way, I have a yellow lab and two cats...had a bassett hound, but she passed away last fall.

I appreciate your input. :thumb:

However I need data that backs all that up.

I am trying to understand the move of the Commission to make a drastic decision.

 

I am not defending the pitbull nor am I wanting it banned, I am trying to have an open mind of all of this.

 

I mentioned earlier I was attacked at a young age by a coon dog.

My spouse one time suffered a severe bite by a chiuaha (sp?)...

 

Isn't the man made breed the crossovers of a perfect breed of what ever they are trying to achieve? Man has made the dog mean?

 

My whole point here is, if they ban a breed of dog, what is next?

Something they see as a problem, instead of enforcing rules they have they just put out a ban?

 

Is this really constitutional?

 

Who else has this in their town?

 

I really would like answers that anyone could give me on that.

 

 

An excellent way to put this. I hope that the dialogue continues because I find it interesting. :thumb:

That is obviously NOT what I am agreeing with. What car is it illegal to own? They can all be VERY dangerous weapons. If is the irresponsibility of the driver that is the real culprit.

 

The wreckless driver, the wreckless gun owner and the wreckless pet owner are the ones that need to serve time. NOT those of use that are responsible with these things that some don't want to have because they are viewed as dangerous.

 

Oh...by the way, I have a yellow lab and two cats...had a bassett hound, but she passed away last fall.

 

It is illegal to run a red light. In your situation, the driver broke a law that resulted in the child being paralyzed.

 

In the dog situation, no law was broken when the child's face is mangled.

I want to buy a lion, should I be allowed to do that? I'm responsible, and it is a lion that was born in captivity, so it's not wild. It has not been "trained" to hunt and kill. As far as I know it has never harmed a flea.

I want to buy a lion, should I be allowed to do that? I'm responsible, and it is a lion that was born in captivity, so it's not wild. It has not been "trained" to hunt and kill. As far as I know it has never harmed a flea.

If you can a license to do so, then whatever.

It is illegal to run a red light. In your situation, the driver broke a law that resulted in the child being paralyzed.

 

In the dog situation, no law was broken when the child's face is mangled.

 

Right. It was the irresponsibility of the dog's owner that caused the situation. I definitely support laws that would make the owner provide adequete security for their animal. I would NOT support laws that prohibit the owner from choosing the type of dog that they want.

It is illegal to run a red light. In your situation, the driver broke a law that resulted in the child being paralyzed.

 

In the dog situation, no law was broken when the child's face is mangled.

I work with a guy whose son was bitten in the face by a chow. It ripped his cheek almost clean off. It has taken several surgeries to repair and he still has scars. The dog was in the owners front yard but was not chained (if I remember correctly). The boy had played with the dog before so thought nothing of walking up to the dog to pet it. Once he got close enough the dog began to growl but before he could get away from it it bit him.

 

Whose at fault?

It is illegal to run a red light. In your situation, the driver broke a law that resulted in the child being paralyzed.

 

In the dog situation, no law was broken when the child's face is mangled.

Well a law would be broken if it were loose and they had a leash law.

Most communities have a leash law. Dogs typically are not allowed to run loose.

I want to buy a lion, should I be allowed to do that? I'm responsible, and it is a lion that was born in captivity, so it's not wild. It has not been "trained" to hunt and kill. As far as I know it has never harmed a flea.

 

Check the link below. Big cats do require special licensing, due to their obvious natures...BUT they can be kept in a responsible manner.

 

http://www.tigerhaven.com/

 

By the way, animal lovers, this is a great cause to donate to.

Right. It was the irresponsibility of the dog's owner that caused the situation. I definitely support laws that would make the owner provide adequete security for their animal. I would NOT support laws that prohibit the owner from choosing the type of dog that they want.

 

That is just political talk.

 

I could put some many conditions on the adequate security for the animal that you could not either a)afford the dog; b)make logical sense to have the dog and accomplish the same thing as banning the dog.

 

All you are doing with what you are suggesting is a) creating government bureucracy; b) and giving control of how I set my home up to the government.

 

 

You must be a Democrat.:D:D:D:lol::lol::lol::lol::jump:

I work with a guy whose son was bitten in the face by a chow. It ripped his cheek almost clean off. It has taken several surgeries to repair and he still has scars. The dog was in the owners front yard but was not chained (if I remember correctly). The boy had played with the dog before so thought nothing of walking up to the dog to pet it. Once he got close enough the dog began to growl but before he could get away from it it bit him.

 

Whose at fault?

 

The owner of the dog for not having control over a dog that is by nature an aggressive dog.

 

I owned a Chow at one time. Had children and gave it away because I knew the nature of Chows and did not want that to be may child's face.

If it was not in a fenced yard (if that is what their animal control laws state) then the dog owner is at fault and can be sued since on his personal property.

That is just political talk.

 

I could put some many conditions on the adequate security for the animal that you could not either a)afford the dog; b)make logical sense to have the dog and accomplish the same thing as banning the dog.

 

All you are doing with what you are suggesting is a) creating government bureucracy; b) and giving control of how I set my home up to the government.

 

 

You must be a Democrat.:D:D:D:lol::lol::lol::lol::jump:

 

Yep. I'm a democrat...but not a dictator. I think that you should be allowed to make choices, but be responsible with those choices.