Posted on 05/02/2007 3:26:57 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter
You’re welcome. I thought this thread needed a visual of the brave little guy.
“You’re welcome. I thought this thread needed a visual of the brave little guy.”
Absolutely.
My wife and I saved a ‘dumped dog’ just last night. Old girl looks to have recently given birth to pups, and somebody just took the collar off, drove out here to the country, and dropped her on our road (sad, its a common occurence, so much we keep a ‘safe haven’ for wayward dogs in our pole barn).
I don’t understand how anyone can do that. If you know dogs, you know ‘confusion’ on their faces when they find themselves outside, abandoned. This dog was obviously an ‘indoor dog’.
Lucky we have neighbors looking for a good dog, and it worked out, in half an hour. Thats not normally the case.
> Then call them mutts, not pitbulls.
Here, they are called “pitbulls”. And they are mutts. Mungrel mutts. Happy to call them Pitbull Mungrel Mutts if that helps. They are also sometimes called “wardogs”. I prefer to call the Pitbull Mungrel Mutts, myself.
> What do suppose is being banned in America? Mutts or pitbulls?
They probably intend to ban Pitbull Mungrel Mutts (good idea, everyone should agree to that) but will accidentally ban American of Boston Terriers and Staffordshire Terriers, bred to a breed standard to be non-aggressive, as “friendly fire”.
I would have thought it was in the best interests of real bull terrier breeders, owners and trainers to thoroughly endorse purging the breed of pitbull mungrel mutts. I can guarantee if this were happening with German Shepherds, and if there were a bunch of German Shepherd Mungrel Mutts running about, decisive action would be taken by the breeders, owners and trainers.
Maybe your dog’s breed ought to drop the “pitbull” part of the name? Just call them American Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, &tc?
Ban? No one should agree to ban "Pitbull Mungrel Mutts" or any dog. Keep your accidental "friendly fire" away.
You made my point, though. The proposed bans won't work because there's no way to sort the dogs out. You would only get many innocent dogs from innocent owners, not the Mongrel Mutts you seem to detest.
I have two mongrel mutts picked up from the shelter. They are great dogs. People like you are part of the problem. Knowing everything about dogs, (you think) you have nothing to learn about people (the real problem).
Btw, I don't breed dogs. I help clean up the shit irresponsible breeders leave behind. (And they ain't all "pitbull" breeders either.)
> Ban? No one should agree to ban “Pitbull Mungrel Mutts” or any dog. Keep your accidental “friendly fire” away.
Hey, I have no issue with banning “pitbulls” or any other animal that is deliberately bred to be aggressive and antisocial and dangerous if that is what it takes to get these animals off the streets.
Snakes are banned in NZ, too. All snakes, even nonpoisonous ones: can’t be had as pets, can’t even be kept in a zoo. Destroyed on sight. Good riddance, too.
There’s no reason why anyone should have a pet snake, and there’s no reason why anyone should have a pitbull.
> People like you are part of the problem. Knowing everything about dogs, (you think) you have nothing to learn about people (the real problem).
People like me who train their dogs properly, who license them and who ensure that they are not bred to have undesireable antisocial traits such as aggression, who socialize them and teach them not to attack kids or adults or other animals? People like *me* are part of the problem?
> You made my point, though. The proposed bans won’t work because there’s no way to sort the dogs out.
I think the proposed bans would work just fine. Certainly worth a try. I’d support them.
> You would only get many innocent dogs from innocent owners, not the Mongrel Mutts you seem to detest.
Yesterday they did a sweep of a Manukau City neighborhood, and bagged eleven unlicensed pitbulls. $300 fine plus $120 registration fees, else the mungrel mutt is destroyed. See, it’s working already. Read about it here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=575&objectid=10438793
Nothing innocent about these dogs — they are unregistered — or their owners. It’s merely a matter of politicians having the political willpower.
No worries in that department either: Sir Barry Curtis, mayor of Manukau City, has declared war on pitbulls. He’s a good mayor, well-respected in NZ. Read about it here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/4054884a6016.html
Even our Prime Minister is in on the act, having observed that “New Zealanders have had a gutsfull” of pitbull attacks. Never thought I’d see the day when I agreed with Helen Clark, but there you go — accidents happen.
> I have two mongrel mutts picked up from the shelter. They are great dogs.
I’m not talking about cross-bred pooches, the sort suitable for pets, like the two you own. I’m talking about mungrel mutts who are bred with the sole intent and purpose of being aggressive, antisocial and vicious: of unknown and indeed varying genetic composition and generically called “pitbulls”.
You assume. Whatever makes you think banning certain breeds will take "aggressive and antisocial and dangerous" dogs off the streets?
People like *me* are part of the problem?
People who believe bans work are part of the problem.
Nothing innocent about these dogs- they are unregistered- or their owners.
And This justifies a ban, in your mind? Or just a Pitbull "sweep"? Of course the dogs would not be innocent..
I think the proposed bans would work just fine. Certainly worth a try. I'd support them.
Well, I think breed bans violate the BOR, are stupid and ineffective, and will only serve to enforce some petty bureaucrat's notion of what passes for accurate identification. *Of any breed*.
...and there's no reason why anyone should have a pitbull.
You are wrong again. There's a reason. Some of us actually know dogs well enough to know that reason:-)
> You assume. Whatever makes you think banning certain breeds will take “aggressive and antisocial and dangerous” dogs off the streets?
It’s a good tool in the Dog Control officer’s kitbag: if he/she sees a banned “breed” — even if it is minding its own business — no further reason, complaint or excuse is necessary for him/her to seize the dog and haul it off to the pound. Three dog breeds are already deemed too dangerous to own in NZ: consequently you don’t see too many of them around anymore. Quite happy for our government to add a fourth “breed” — pitbulls.
> People who believe bans work are part of the problem.
Bans seem to work just fine: there are no pet snakes in NZ because they are banned. They are a clumsy administrative tool, granted — and meaningless if not enforced. I’d prefer for there to be better ways of dealing with the pitbull problem in NZ, but for want of a better method, bans will do.
> And This justifies a ban, in your mind? Or just a Pitbull “sweep”? Of course the dogs would not be innocent..
Yup. And in the minds of many. Ban and sweep.
> Well, I think breed bans violate the BOR,
There are many things in the US that a private citizen is prohibited from owning, and the BOR has nothing to say about it. So why not add “pitbulls” to that list
> are stupid and ineffective,
It remains to be seen how effective a pitbull ban would be. I’m hoping they try it out in NZ first.
> and will only serve to enforce some petty bureaucrat’s notion of what passes for accurate identification. *Of any breed*.
Spaniels look like spaniels, German Shepherds look like German Shepherds, British Bulldogs look like British Bulldogs, boxers look like boxers, Boston Terriers look like Boston Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers look like Staffordshire Terriers. And pitbulls look like pitbulls. Even a petty bureaucrat would be unlikely to mistake a poodle for a pitbull.
>> ...and there’s no reason why anyone should have a pitbull.
> You are wrong again. There’s a reason. Some of us actually know dogs well enough to know that reason:-)
Hmmm... lemme guess. Dogfighting? Intimidation? As a potentially lethal offensive weapon? Those are the only reasons I can think of — and they are all crimes.
No private individual has a legitimate reason for owning a nuclear warhead. And nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a pitbull: for the same reason, on a different scale.
Is that right..the BOR has nothing to say about equal protection of the law...let's use your reasoning and not stop with stripping dog owners of their rights if the BOR has nothing to say. Let's just ban everything that's even remotely dangerous and make our world a safer place.
Even a petty bureaucrat would be unlikely to mistake a poodle for a pitbull.
My point being bureaucrats do not care. They care about justifying their existence. The onus is on you to prove your dog isn't an APBT, or Chow, or Rottie, or Akita, or AmStaff or any mix of the breeds deemed dangerous and therefore banned. Papers, comrade?
Hmmm... lemme guess. Dogfighting? Intimidation? As a potentially lethal offensive weapon? Those are the only reasons I can think of — and they are all crimes.
There are other reasons, which you willfully choose to not think about.
Ban and sweep.
Not in America.
> Is that right..the BOR has nothing to say about equal protection of the law...let’s use your reasoning and not stop with stripping dog owners of their rights if the BOR has nothing to say.
You don’t have a right to own a personal thermonuclear weapon. You don’t have the right to own cocaine. Those are rights that you sensibly do not have because they present too much danger to yourself and to others. Pitbulls should be treated similarly. Is that “stripping away rights?” I wouldn’t have thought so. But even if it is, it is a right that ought to be stripped. What gives you the right to own something whose very existence presents a danger to others? Does the BOR somehow protect you and not the rest of those around you? No.
> Let’s just ban everything that’s even remotely dangerous and make our world a safer place.
No, let’s not let the scope creep: let’s just ban pitbulls. We’re not talking about taking your guns away — that is arguably a protected right — we’re talking about abating a specific public nuisance: dangerous pitbull dogs.
> My point being bureaucrats do not care. They care about justifying their existence.
In this case, that would be just fine.
> The onus is on you to prove your dog isn’t an APBT, or Chow, or Rottie, or Akita, or AmStaff or any mix of the breeds deemed dangerous and therefore banned. Papers, comrade?
Crossed the border lately? Customs and Excise do that all the time, with contraband. Works just fine, has worked for many years.
I have no difficulty at all with declaring all pitbulls to be contraband and having you prove that your dog isn’t. Reversing the Onus of Proof is a well-established principle with the IRS when enforcing tax laws. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to see how it could work with enforcing dog licensing.
> There are other reasons, which you willfully choose to not think about.
OK so why should you be allowed to own a pitbull that is a danger to yourself and all others around you, bred specifically for its aggressive tendancies?
>> Ban and sweep.
>
> Not in America
You’re kidding, right...? So what was the War on Drugs all about? Ban-and-Sweep happens all the time in America. You’ve turned it into a fine art!
“Not in America” is wishful thinking, mate.
A Ban-and-Sweep on pitbulls would be alot easier than a Ban-and-Sweep on illicit drugs — which is an added bonus. Pitbulls are difficult to smuggle, and even more difficult to conceal: they stand out like, well, dog’s bollix. You can see one, point at it, and immediately and correctly identify it as a pitbull. Wham! — seized, just like that.
Nothing difficult about this at all. It could easily happen in America.
Now let's talk about what rights YOU don't have. Hate pitbulls? Who really gives a rat's patootie what you hate. You can. No one cares. What You have NO right to do is demand I forfeit my freedom to opinion. You ask: What gives you the right to own something whose very existence presents a danger to others? I get it now...Your warped opinion is not only worth more than mine about my own dogs, but your opinion is worth more than my freedom. But It isn't and will never be.
It could easily happen in America.
It can, and is. But maybe someday enough will say ENOUGH.
> Now let’s talk about what rights YOU don’t have. Hate pitbulls? Who really gives a rat’s patootie what you hate.
I don’t really “hate” pitbulls so much as I hate the damage that they cause. I don’t like the FACT that they attack children and livestock and miniature horses and jack russel terriers, just for fun and because they have been bred to do so. Most decent Citizens would agree with me on that one: so who gives a FRA about what I think? Well, here in NZ the majority of public opinion would be on my side re: your “right” to own dangerous breeds such as pitbulls. And I suspect that it may be the same in the US.
Frankly, none of us would mind much if the only damage they could do was to you personally as the owner. Problem is, it is usually somebody else who suffers.
> But the BOR binds government to limits, not citizens.
True? Equal Protection would extend to the government protecting me from your pitbulls, as much as it would extend to you being protected from a government confiscating these dangerous mutts from you. Why would the BOR protect your right to own a dangerous dog over my right to be safe from your dog? What gives you the right to endanger others?
The BOR doesn’t, of course.
> What You have NO right to do is demand I forfeit my freedom to opinion.
You are free to have your opinion and to debate and defend it as vigorously as you can, with all the might and strength and endurance that God can give you.
> You ask: What gives you the right to own something whose very existence presents a danger to others? I get it now...Your warped opinion is not only worth more than mine about my own dogs, but your opinion is worth more than my freedom.
Mate, just answer the question please: what gives you the right to own something whose very existence presents a danger to others?
No need to be a drama queen about it: it is a simple question. If you have the right to endanger others, then fine: please expound and if you’re right I will acknowledge it. This has nothing to do with freedom of expression or the value of my opinion over yours. It is a question of boundaries: where do your rights to own end and my rights to safety begin?
That's it? That's all the freedom God gave me?
Mate, just answer the question please: what gives you the right to own something whose very existence presents a danger to others?
I did answer your question, "Mate". And what can I do about it if you don't understand the answer?
No need to be a drama queen about it: it is a simple question. If you have the right to endanger others, then fine: please expound and if you're right I will acknowledge it.
You've beat this one to death, already. Enough.
It is a question of boundaries: where do your rights to own end and my rights to safety begin?
When your safety is actually threatened by what I own.
Why would the BOR protect your right to own a dangerous dog over my right to be safe from your dog?
It doesn't. It protects my right to own a dog of my choosing, though.
I'll cut this short so we can stop playing. Dangerous dogs exist. Dangerous breeds do not. Your silly questions are based on a false assumption.
> I’ll cut this short so we can stop playing. Dangerous dogs exist. Dangerous breeds do not. Your silly questions are based on a false assumption.
I can cut it even shorter: I can introduce you a few dangerous “pitbulls”, bred to be dangerous. A mate of mine runs one of the City pounds, he’d have quite a few on hand at any given time. Let’s see how you handle ‘em. I’ll bring bandages and penicillin, tea and sympathy, and maybe a shotgun just in case things get out of hand.
Remember, we are not talking about a dog of a “breed standard”, we are talking about mutts bred to be aggressive and dangerous, of dubious parentage, loosely called “pitbulls” and sharing some physical similarities. These are dangerous mungrel mutts, and if people insist on calling them a “breed” then they are generically known as “pitbulls”. As I have said a few times now, we are not talking about the sort of dog Kanawa owns. We are talking about mungrel mutts bred to be dangerous, with some similar characteristics but most noticeably a tendancy toward severe aggression. Almost psychopathically so.
>> It is a question of boundaries: where do your rights to own end and my rights to safety begin?
>
> When your safety is actually threatened by what I own.
Thankyou. I submit for your consideration that the mere presence of dangerous mungrel mutts — generically called “pitbulls” but not a proper breed per-se, whose sole purpose is to be aggressive and dangerous — actually threatens my personal safety and the safety of others. If you own such an animal, I suggest this breaches my rights as a matter of course. Not just by actually harming me, but by presenting the threat of doing so. I should not have to go in fear of your pets whilst minding my own business, and neither should anyone else.
Such animals should be banned. Then rounded up and euthanized.
This may or may not describe the animal you own: it would not for instance describe the animal Kanawa owns. It would certainly describe the animals that killed George the Jack Russell Terrier. Any fool can walk down the street and instantly and easily identify these dangerous animals.
I can appreciate that you love and care for your animals: that much is obvious. So do I. I have nothing but contempt and dislike for people who breed animals to be dangerous, deliberately. Perhaps this is where you and I disagree: I suspect not.
You can't identify the "mungrel mutts" you want to kill. This may or may not describe the animal you own:
But your indiscriminate ban, sweep, and euthanize campaign would take them anyway, and many others, without doing one thing to address the real problem.
> You can’t identify the “mungrel mutts” you want to kill.
I think you can, pretty easily: both by general appearance (they share some physical characteristics) and by overly-aggressive behavior. And by the fact that many of them will be unlicensed and owned by the criminal subclass.
> But your indiscriminate ban, sweep, and euthanize campaign would take them anyway, and many others, without doing one thing to address the real problem.
The real problem is that people should not breed animals to enhance their aggressive tendancies: particularly those dog breeds with a big crushing bite.
Unfortunately, criminals will do this precisely because they shouldn’t. And people will do this who aren’t currently criminals to supply the criminal trade, because there is money to be had.
You could try to dry up the supply of new “pitbull” pups by making it unlawful to breed to enhance “aggression” — this would be difficult to police and enforce.
Or you could only permit licensed breeders to breed dogs: to be effective there would have to be a compulsory neutering program in place for all dogs who are not breedstock. And even then, that would only drive the trade underground.
Or you could introduce vicarious liability for dog attacks, ranging from intimidation to assault to GBH to manslaughter to murder. The problem with that idea is that criminals don’t mind going to gaol, and with concurrent sentencing the concept becomes a joke.
Or you can take away the dangerous dogs and make it unlawful to possess one. Of the options, I think this is really the only option that is feasible. Naturally some safeguards would need to be in place: commonsense could help guide its implementation. Registered dog, neutered, no complaints of aggression: have the owner sign a form acknowledging that his dog could be dangerous, let them go with a warning that the dog will be destroyed the very first time it attacks a person or an animal.
The alternative is the status quo, and people in NZ are sick of the status quo: too many kids, too many animals, being attacked by vicious mungrel mutts loosely called “pitbulls”.
How many times must this be said? Breed bans are repugnant and won't do a thing to stop attacks, mostly for the reasons you yourself have listed. So your idea becomes this: Or you can take away the dangerous dogs and make it unlawful to possess one. Of the options, I think this is really the only option that is feasible.
Nope, wouldn't work either and for the same reasons breed bans don't.
The real problem is people.
Back to work for you.
> How many times must this be said? Breed bans are repugnant
Very few of us in NZ are repugnatized(?)/repugnated(?) (is that a word?) at the lack of American Pit Bulls, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos, and Brazilian Filas, which are breed-banned. Most of us don’t give a stuff, because that’s four dangerous breeds we needn’t contend with and who just don’t attack anymore.
> and won’t do a thing to stop attacks, mostly for the reasons you yourself have listed.
Attacks from the above four breeds just don’t seem to happen anymore, for some reason...
> So your idea becomes this: Or you can take away the dangerous dogs and make it unlawful to possess one. Of the options, I think this is really the only option that is feasible.
>
> Nope, wouldn’t work either and for the same reasons breed bans don’t.
Why do you think this would not work?
>> The real problem is people.
>
> Back to work for you.
Clearly work needs to be done on cleaning up the sort of people who breed dogs to be aggressive and dangerous. I still have absolutely no difficulty with the concept of taking away their dangerous dogs and having them destroyed. It makes perfect sense.
Thanks for proving my point. I have one left (Hint: "dangerous") but I've totally lost interest in your POV.
Adios.
> Adios
y vaya con Dios. Anytime you feel like fixing our pitbull problem DownUnder in New Zealand, feel free to volunteer, mate. Show us how it’s done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.