« Prev Page 6 of 6 4 5 6 Please log in to reply 138 replies to this topic

[EyesWideOpen]

pastitche, on 2012-02-14 21:51:16, said:

F1fanatic, on 2012-02-14 14:04:37, said:

Pitbulls were bred to be aggressive a few decades ago but, times have changed and its only a tiny minority (of dog fighting enthusiasts) nowadays who do so.  As always, its down to the owner...

For those of you who are convinced that all pitbulls are 'psychotic' and will 'attack on a trigger' - watch the Dog Whisperer.

As I said in an earlier post, I would not adopt one myself as I know I am not authoritive enough.

Most terriers (especially bull terriers) need a stong, dominating personality to take charge. Personally, I have enough problems with my whippet's behaviour ! He is not at all 'dominant' and doesn't seem to understand the concept (!) BUT, I have problems enough distracting him from hunting small animals.

I understand your point that there may be fewer dog-fighting enthusiasts (although I am not convinced that there is still not an underground subculture where it exists) and as a result fewer pitbulls trained to be psychotic killers. The Dog Whisperer and his 30-minute shows are all very impressive but I am sure that even Cesar would not recommend these animals to be regarded in the same way as your average pet. I am not suggesting compulsory euthanasia, merely reversing the selective breeding that produced them by removing them from the canine gene pool

Do not know much about the dog whisperer, but I do know that 59% of dog fatal attacks in America are done by pit bulls. Rottweilers tag far behind at 14%. Not really sure of the solution from a breeding standpoint, but I always take precautions when I see a pit bull.....

Edited by EyesWideOpen, 2012-02-14 22:17:14.

[katana]

Reasonableman, on 2012-02-14 19:09:04, said:

...If a guy leaves his presumably frail and aged mother alone at home with a pit bull, he is either an idiot or has a motive...

There's quite a bit more to that story. If you'd been following it in the Thai press you would be able to answer your question.

[jambco984]

merck, on 2012-02-10 18:24:57, said:

I can't bear those dogs. There's invariably a sense of menace about them. And their owners for that matter. The whole breed, along with their tattooed owners should be placed in a giant industrial mincer, ground to a pulp, and eradicated.

Couldn't agree with you more. Horrible breed, Horrible people.


PS - I'm sure there are exceptions though just to keep everyone happy here.

[Bakeman]

R.I.P.

My condolences to Mr Khamchan's family and friends.

[ronz28]

Latest Pit Bull killing in US was a 4 Year old in Victoria county, TX

http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/

Owners need to be held responsible same as they pulled a trigger on a gun to murder the victim.

[Valentine]

katana, on 2012-02-15 14:04:57, said:

Reasonableman, on 2012-02-14 19:09:04, said:

...If a guy leaves his presumably frail and aged mother alone at home with a pit bull, he is either an idiot or has a motive...

There's quite a bit more to that story. If you'd been following it in the Thai press you would be able to answer your question.

I cannot read Thai, please enlighten.

[Pseudolus]

The smaller the owners penis, the nastier the dog. I stay well away from pitbuls and Rottis; they are not pets as far as I am concerned.

[DLock]

ronz28, on 2012-03-27 06:58:19, said:

Latest Pit Bull killing in US was a 4 Year old in Victoria county, TX

http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/

Owners need to be held responsible same as they pulled a trigger on a gun to murder the victim.

100% agree...and I own a pitbull.

[saengsureeya]

I've to admit: I'm a dog hater. It's probably because I don't understand the creatures or why they are even existing.
I'll not judge the dogs neither will I judge the owners, because it is like kicking in an open door.
I just feel sad, that those creatures even got the chance to attack and kill.

[animatic]

MikeOboe57, on 2012-02-10 18:46:37, said:

While pit bulls are as dangerous as they are ugly, this pales in comparison to angering their owners which can even bring one of the biggest fast food companies down on its knees, at least in "God's Own Country".

Quote

LOS ANGELES -- McDonald's has apologized and pulled an ad that came back to bite it.
The ad said eating a Chicken McBite was less risky than petting a stray pit bull, shaving your head, naming your son Sue or giving friends your Facebook password. It enraged pit bull owners and their supporters.
http://www.huffingto..._n_1259588.html

You might even be ordered to:

Quote

"promote positive pit bull imagery." (Rachele Lizarraga, social media coordinator for Chako Pit Bull Rescue)

At most they paid off a nuisance suit from a shady lawyer to make it all go away.

[ttelise]

Sorry, all pit bulls suck.  I clerked for a Supreme Court Justice out of law school and we reviewed a famous case in my State where an older female lady was mauled to death by 2.  People passing by could not get out of their cars to help.  They could only honk, call 911 and watch helplessly.

The issue we addressed was whether the owner was criminally liable.  We concluded yes and affirmed his conviction.

The pictures of her wounds that were admitted into evidence were shocking and I have seen high powered gun shot wounds, heads blown off, arms blown off, and body mutilations in an effort to destroy evidence of murder.  These dogs had ripped large plugs of flesh out that went down to the bone.  The flesh was ripped from her arms to the point of exposing large foot long portions skeleton.

Every pit bull I have been around goes for the neck even when just playing or when getting excited.  Even docile, well behaved pits go for the neck when playing.  These dogs eventually turn as they get older or just one day snap without any warning.

I had an Akida that I had to put down because it got very aggressive toward other people the older it got no matter how sweet we were to it.  It was 125 pounds and was going to seriously hurt someone one day.  Hard to do, but had to be done.

Edited by ttelise, 2012-03-27 12:14:15.

[ttelise]

ronz28, on 2012-03-27 06:58:19, said:

Latest Pit Bull killing in US was a 4 Year old in Victoria county, TX

http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/

Owners need to be held responsible same as they pulled a trigger on a gun to murder the victim.

Owners can be held criminally and civilly liable even if there has not been a prior attack.  One bite rule is typically inapplicable if the breed is classified as "dangerous" as codified in State code[s].

[ronz28]

ttelise, on 2012-03-27 12:06:28, said:

Sorry, all pit bulls suck.  I clerked for a Supreme Court Justice out of law school and we reviewed a famous case in my State where an older female lady was mauled to death by 2.  People passing by could not get out of their cars to help.  They could only honk, call 911 and watch helplessly.

The issue we addressed was whether the owner was criminally liable.  We concluded yes and affirmed his conviction.

The pictures of her wounds that were admitted into evidence were shocking and I have seen high powered gun shot wounds, heads blown off, arms blown off, and body mutilations in an effort to destroy evidence of murder.  These dogs had ripped large plugs of flesh out that went down to the bone.  The flesh was ripped from her arms to the point of exposing large foot long portions skeleton.

Every pit bull I have been around goes for the neck even when just playing or when getting excited.  Even docile, well behaved pits go for the neck when playing.  These dogs eventually turn as they get older or just one day snap without any warning.

I had an Akida that I had to put down because it got very aggressive toward other people the older it got no matter how sweet we were to it.  It was 125 pounds and was going to seriously hurt someone one day.  Hard to do, but had to be done.

That's interesting, I have read and heard people saying pit bulls are sweet dogs and then they end up attacking and killing people like flipping a light switch on. So, I guess older pit dogs are even more dangerous (I didn't know dogs get more aggressive as they age), but I don't trust any pit bull and wish the breed were illegal.

[cup-O-coffee]

Gone, on 2012-02-10 18:24:08, said:

I do agree that in general pit-bulls were bread as fighting dogs years ago and are dangerous in the wrong hands (one who lets them run free outside of their property) however I still believe that it can be bread OUT of them with the proper owners and responsibilities.

Guns are safe when kept in a locked environment as are pit-bulls.

I'm not defending pitbulls, just animals in general. They all have a right to live.

In this case the owner failed to keep his guns locked up there for he is liable.

Animals have a right to live, but not THE right. And their right to live  is up to a point.

I am describing animals in the wild and animals that are domesticated.

I am also describing the third  kind of animal that exists in developing minds (hence developing countries - and to imply that the minds are not yet fully developed to the standard across the world). This is the kind of animal that is wild and it dwells amongst man in man's environment.

The animal in the wild does not have a right to live because you are not there to plead your idiotic ideals in its case of being mauled by the lion or trampled by an elephant in a stampede. It is a creature far removed from you fancies that exists in a food chain, and they only survive to perpetuate themselves. It is really very simple without adding all the anthropomorphic diatribe that humans are so fond of doing so humans can feel good about themselves and have merit in their hearts!

The animal that has been domesticated has a right to live as deemed by its legal and lawful owner. The key word here is legal and lawful; something the Thais and many bleeding heart foreigners ignore and break the law by not purchasing a license and getting the necessary vaccinations for said wild animal. They turn it loose in man's society to avoid responsibility and fine and jail-time for not complying with the law. Now you are crossing my line because I have the right to live in man's society and make it safe for my son to also live.

Take you feral pooch that you refuse to take into your home and purchase a license and get it its vaccinations - and instead turn loose on the street and casually feed every day - and put that pooch ahead of and above the rights of me and my own in MY environment (not theirs), and I guarantee if anything happens to me or my own on account of you "Feeding the Animals" then the dog will only be the first to go.

The animal that is feral and even wild and is allowed to roam amongst man in man's environment is predominant in Thailand and is a crime against man for the reasons given above; failure to comply with the law and protect the rights of your human neighbor.

In the zoo we see signs that say Do Not Feed the Animals. Why is that? In the sois the Thais feed the wild animals. Oh, yes, they are wild because no one can prove to me that they have a license and their vaccinations and are solely owned by the bleeding heart liberal accusing me of being a cold-hearted creature that deserves death for wanting to mop up the streets.

It does not matter whether the un-owned animal acts tame or not. It is not legally and lawfully owned then it is therefore either a stray that is abandoned, wild, or feral.

And by that token, it is not against the law (according to Royal Thai Law) to "round up strays".

We do not live in the wild, and therefore you cannot say to me that animals have a right to live right here in the middle of a society set up by man and for man's convenience alone. Man's society has laws, and since animals have no respect for intangible things like laws, then it is the responsibility of humans to make sure that those animals are suited to exist in man's environment in a manner that is safe for all humans who dwell therein.

No, I think you err in your simple assertion that animals have a right to live. They do not, unless you can prove that the animal is yours by the law as it is written. Try going into the wild and telling the lion you have a right to live while you are being mauled. You are in his environment, and therefore must live by his rules or become a part of the food chain.

Edited by cup-O-coffee, 2012-03-30 13:07:21.