Dangerous dogs and stuff (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

Nature versus nurture:

Are pit bulls biologically predisposed to being an aggressive bread or are they trained(or neglected) into becoming one?

If the former is true a case can be made for banning the bread, if the latter is true then there is not much which can be done practically.

Incidentally I wonder how comparable banning dogs is with banning guns?

 

[David Spade]

Without a shred of evidence, yes pitbulls are biologically predisposed to being aggressive. This along with their powerful body = kills babbys

 

[Kwayera]

Nature versus nurture:

Are pit bulls biologically predisposed to being an aggressive bread or are they trained(or neglected) into becoming one?

If the former is true a case can be made for banning the bread, if the latter is true then there is not much which can be done practically.

Incidentally I wonder how comparable banning dogs is with banning guns?

The breed itself? I doubt it; otherwise NO pit bull would make a good pet, and they do. Certain lines of breeding? Quite possible.

I still regard it as on the nurture side, however. Consider a dog a dangerous one and it is generally treated and exploited as one.

 

[John McCain]

The breed itself? I doubt it; otherwise NO pit bull would make a good pet, and they do.

10% of king charles cavalier don't have sringomyelia. Does this justify the existence of the breed? A minority of entirely safe, non-violent dogs doesn't mean there isn't a higher genetic predisposition to violence. A predisposition does not mean 100% of a breed have to suffer a condition.

Even supposing your premise that proper training can make any pit bull safe is true, given the fact that many pit bulls will become violent if neglected, and other breeds will remain safe and non-violent under the same circumstances, isn't the fact they can and will be raised and trained irresponsibly by some owners, and there are countless safer alternatives, reason enough to at least strongly legislate their ownership, if not outright ban?

Would you agree current laws regarding breeding and ownership are too liberal?

Allowing people to own a potentially uncontrollable animal capable of inflicting lethal force, without at least strict legislation to control their upbringing and handling is unconscionable to the victims. Yeah the victims.

I think if they are to be owned, ownership should be subject to similar restrictions as current gun laws in Australia. Lengthy and difficult to obtain, mandatory education, required to be kept in a proper environment where they can't be stumbled upon accidentally, inspections of the environment they are kept in, never to leave the house without proper precautions.

 

[Kwayera]

10% of king charles cavalier don't have sringomyelia. Does this justify the existence of the breed? A minority of entirely safe, non-violent dogs doesn't mean there isn't a higher genetic predisposition to violence. A predisposition does not mean 100% of a breed have to suffer a condition.

Which is why I said that those 10% of cavvies should be the line that is bred, not the 90% that have a genetic disease that doesn't need to be passed on.

And no, correct, but predisposition to aggression is also largely due to environment, as below:

Even supposing your premise that proper training can make any pit bull safe is true,

Not if they've already been abused/mistreated/incorrectly trained.

given the fact that many pit bulls will become violent if neglected, and other breeds will remain safe and non-violent under the same circumstances, isn't the fact they can and will be raised and trained irresponsibly by some owners, and there are countless safer alternatives, reason enough to at least strongly legislate their ownership, if not outright ban?

ANY dog can be dangerous. ANY dog can maul, and ANY dog can kill (yes, even the little ones - although actually I doubt that in a chihuahua!). Does this mean all dogs should be banned and replaced with cats?

Would you agree current laws regarding breeding and ownership are too liberal?

100%.

Allowing people to own a potentially uncontrollable animal capable of inflicting lethal force, without at least strict legislation to control their upbringing and handling is unconscionable to the victims.

All dogs are potentially uncontrollable (as are, for example, all horses capable of shying, throwing their rider and killing them). Some perhaps more predisposed to aggression than others, yes.

[quote[I think if they are to be owned, ownership should be subject to similar restrictions as current gun laws in Australia. Lengthy and difficult to obtain, mandatory education, required to be kept in a proper environment where they can't be stumbled upon accidentally, inspections of the environment they are kept in, never to leave the house without proper precautions.[/QUOTE]

Agree with the bolded, but disagree with the latter because it shouldn't be necessary if the former conditions are met.

 

[John McCain]

ANY dog can be dangerous. ANY dog can maul, and ANY dog can kill (yes, even the little ones - although actually I doubt that in a chihuahua!). Does this mean all dogs should be banned and replaced with cats?

True, but the point was that under the same circumstances a pit bull will be dangerous where other breeds won't. You don't need to be an experienced owner or apply particularly careful training to have a miniature schnauzer that is safe around children. To have one ever attack an adult, you'd have to apply unusually neglectful training, or have the misfortune of a dog with an exceptional personality disorder.

But if we're in agreement that pit bulls should be subject to stricter ownership requirements than other dogs, whatever.

 

[Kwayera]

True, but the point was that under the same circumstances a pit bull will be dangerous where other breeds won't. You don't need to be an experienced owner or apply particularly careful training to have a miniature schnauzer that is safe around children. To have one ever attack an adult, you'd have to apply unusually neglectful training, or have the misfortune of a dog with an exceptional personality disorder.

But if we're in agreement that pit bulls should be subject to stricter ownership requirements than other dogs, whatever.

But as I've said, I don't think pitbulls from non-fighting show lines would need careful training, any more than other powerful breeds (rotties, labs, german shepherds). Dogs from fighting strains? Yes, and they wouldn't be appropriate around kids, I don't think (though that isn't set in stone - there are behavioural tests you can do to test trigger points, i.e. possessiveness of food, pulling their ears like a kid would, etc).

 

[Kwayera]

Maltese terrier joins dangerous dog list

They may look friendly and loveable, but the little Maltese terrier has joined the NSW government's list of ill-tempered dogs.

The Maltese terrier was involved in 12 attacks on people across NSW in the July-September period, according to the latest Dog Attack Register.

It is the first time the dog has featured in the "top 20 attacking list" on the register launched in January.

"This is obviously a surprising outcome, but nonetheless a reminder that any dog has the potential to attack, regardless of breed," Minister for Local Government Barbara Perry said today.

Another unexpected inclusion was the state's most popular dog, the Labrador retriever, which was reportedly involved in 20 attacks from July to September.

The Dog Attack Register indicates the Staffordshire bull terrier was the prime offender in the latest quarter.

It was involved in 116 attacks, followed by the Australian cattle dog, implicated in 56 attacks, and the German shepherd with 55.

Overall, the register shows 823 dog attacks reported by councils in the July-September period, an increase from 774 in the previous quarter.

Infringement notices were issued to 251 dog owners, with 124 dogs destroyed after an attack.

 

[auraflux7]

I kind of neglected my pup a bit when she was younger by not being home enough. So she dug holes and barked and was socially retarded and in turn i beat her lol. Since i started taking her for daily runs and swims and playing with other dogs she is a completely different dog.

Edit: staghounds are genetically superior to everything

Lol, staghounds? You've gotta be fucking kidding.
Their useless cunts, my friend has one and even he
thinks there dero cunts. Based on experience I'm telling
you, no dog comes close to a German Shepherd, those dogs
are peculiarly humane, they've got more intelligence then
some people lol. No dog comes close. NO DOG!

Edit: Best thing Germany has given us.

 

[David Spade]

your friend sounds like a dero cunt

 

[auraflux7]

your friend sounds like a dero cunt

Don't get all defensive hahahaha. Those dogs are fucking useless tbh, only a dero cunt such as yourself would go for one. (NO DISRESPECT INTENDED)

 

[HumanDichotomy]

pit bull control etc is in the news again so i thought this would be a good time to show how smrt i am

"should need a licence for any type of dog
and like gun licences you must have a valid reason for having one
and like gun licences only certain dogs would satisfy certain reasons
like for companionship, only well tempered dogs etc would be allowed
for work, only smart, working dogs would be allowed
shit dogs that dont fit any criteria well enough should be banned"

seems pretty straight forward way to police dogs etc. handled the same way dog registration etc is now, through local council. apply for a licence, for a fee of course, with your valid reason and you can get a dog. fuck up and abuse the dog etc and you licence can be revoked, for a period of time or forever, whateva.

a list would have to be compiled (by scienctists and vets and animal behaviour experts and me), outlining which dogs were suitable for which purposes, obviously some breeds would satisfy all (kelpies), some would satisfy none (pitbulls)

if anyone can fault me, please do so

if not i am submitting this idea to the Mr PRIME MINISTER

Interesting idea.

Two questions:

1. How do you propose that people would justify their need for a dog?

2. Who defines a 'shit dog'?

At first, my reaction was sort of an automatic 'no' but then I thought that it could be a great way to reduce animal abuse/abandonment.

The only problem would be the criteria and the cost.

 

[David Spade]

Don't get all defensive hahahaha. Those dogs are fucking useless tbh, only a dero cunt such as yourself would go for one. (NO DISRESPECT INTENDED)

Im not getting defensive, i actually know what im talking about. The best pig dog i have ever seen was a stag crossed with bull arab/pitty. The best roo dog i have ever seen was a stag made from deerhound/greyhound crossed with wolfhound. I doubt you have even seen one in action, lol im not into getting defensive when im know im right braaa

 

[auraflux7]

Im not getting defensive, i actually know what im talking about. The best pig dog i have ever seen was a stag crossed with bull arab/pitty. The best roo dog i have ever seen was a stag made from deerhound/greyhound crossed with wolfhound. I doubt you have even seen one in action, lol im not into getting defensive when im know im right braaa

Lol, probably only good because it was mixd with the bull arab and pitbull.
German Shepherds are not even pig dogs, yet I reckon they'd handle themselves better. CASE CLOSED.

 

[David Spade]

you'd reckon even though you have no idea what you're talking about, good one bro