Pit Bull Terrier, why?

[EFLImpudence]

ajs - just seen your post.

I may not have been aware of all the points you state but I will just ask:


Is it worth the risk and for what benefit?

Are you going to come here one night and say:

"Oh dear you were right; he has eaten my daughter"?

 

[jockscott]

It is a mutant

As are all domesticated dogs.

Alcohol's a potent poison, but no government will stop us swilling it down our necks, every week day. Doctors advise the government about the effects of alcohol and the costs of alcohol to society, yet the government do pitiful. little to curb the use of this poison. (another argument for another thread though)

 

[ajstoneservices]

Worth the risk? I have had those two dogs for 7 years so they are nearing the end of their lives. They have never ever shown any aggressive behavior towards anybody in that time.

I have had dogs since a small boy. None of them have ever show any aggression to a human being but have had to be kept under control while around other dogs. All of them have died of old age.

 

[EFLImpudence]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree but the attraction for such animals is beyond me.

Has anyone answered noseall's question?

 

[ajstoneservices]

His questioned was answered ages ago but he hasn't realised it.

The average family doesn't want a dangerous dog.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So they choose an unattractive one that may be. Oh well.


tfb.

 

[noseall]

His questioned was answered ages ago but he hasn't realised it.

The average family doesn't want a dangerous dog.

So who DOES want these ridiculous dogs?

Are you saying that these dogs exist simply to satisfy the needs of idiots, morons and chavs so that they can look ard?

No one has explained the decision making process of owning one of these animals as a pet.

WHAT SORT OF A PERSON DECIDES THEY WANT AN AMERICAN PIT BULL?

Seeing as the pro-dangerous dog clan brought up other wild man eaters.....

....Could you imagine having friends round and saying "oh don't mind my lion, he won't bite"
FFS

I expected more from pro-doggys and all I have got is evasive question dodging.

So far there have been no credible answer as to why this breed exists simply that if you eradicate a dangerous dog breed you may as well eradicate Lions and alcohol too. It must be true that the only people who support the breeding of dangerous dogs are idiots.

Case rested.

 

[Brigadier]

Because a brain cell can never be too lonely, or a Pee nars too small

 

[footprints]

Time to cut the chatter and introduce expensive licensing with chipping to identify the dog and owner responsible for the animal with compulsory insurance, the premiums alone on large or dangerous dogs would deter owners.
Dogs would be required to be seen by a vet at least once a year, to check their condition and worm them. A very large premium on any un-neutered pets would reduce the numbers of puppies around too.

 

[AronSearle]

Time to cut the chatter and introduce expensive licensing with chipping to identify the dog and owner responsible for the animal with compulsory insurance, the premiums alone on large or dangerous dogs would deter owners.
Dogs would be required to be seen by a vet at least once a year, to check their condition and worm them. A very large premium on any un-neutered pets would reduce the numbers of puppies around too.

Noseall is just trolling, but I suspect you are not.

What a miserable country this would be if people like you got their way.

 

[Ricardus]

Are you saying that these dogs exist simply to satisfy the needs of idiots, morons and chavs so that they can look ard?

No one has explained the decision making process of owning one of these animals as a pet.

WHAT SORT OF A PERSON DECIDES THEY WANT AN AMERICAN PIT BULL?

I suspect your first rhetorical question there is correct.
Unlike many breeds of dogs that were created with a practical purpose, pit bulls and the ilk were created for bloodsports (bear baiting, bull baiting) and then to fight each other when those sports were banned.
I'm an animal lover, but I'd be quite happy to see the entire bull-terrier breed fade into extinction.

 

[Brigadier]

All dogs have their own mind, are not perpetually under "control" (or if they are, what a cruel and miserable life they lead), and can inflict injury, if they so decide / are provoked.

The difference is the likely severity of the injury, and the likelihood of an unprepared, untrained bystander being able to stop the animal.

If a relly's collie decides to turn on my 6 yr old, it could do serious damage, even with swift intervention. That said, I could probably boot it halfway into orbit if it did, and incapacitate it.
I doubt that I could do the same to a ten stone bull mastiff, or a dog specifically trained to tear its own kin limb from limb / hunt lions, or whatever the latest fashion accessory's "gift" is.......

 

[footprints]

What a miserable country this would be if people like you got their way.

I stand by my post, it would be better for dogs welfare, stop unwanted puppies and lower the chances of people being injured, not least police who are often exposed to dangerous dogs.
Do you think the anti-rabies laws make the country miserable?

Although my has dog died, if i replaced him I would have no objection to such a law, in fact lots of owners already microchip, have regular vet check ups and insurance, so have little effect on those animals or owners.

 

[Ricardus]

TANGENT
Would allowing people to carry guns would reduce the incidents of chavs/thugs owing dangerous dogs as a status symbol or weapon?
At least there's some level of control with a gun.

Plus if a dangerous dog attacks you could shoot it. IIRC the options for defending against an attack dog go something like 1) Shoot it (guns are banned) 2) Mace/CS it (also banned) 3) Pepper spray (banned again) 4) Let it chew on your throat until it gets bored or the owner calls it off.
/ TANGENT

 

[AronSearle]

it would be better for dogs welfare

Just like drinking laws and high booze taxes have solved alcholisim.

Oh no wait, it's just made life more miserable, helped shut down pubs, and penalises the poor unfairly (but **** the poor yes, if they can't affrord it, more for the toffs!)

stop unwanted puppies

Because of course irrisponsible people would be made responsible

and lower the chances of people being injured

Begging the question.

Do you think the anti-rabies laws make the country miserable?

I wasnt aware that anti-rabies laws made me have to pay fees for things, oh wait, they dont, have a strawman.

insurance, so have little effect on those animals or owners.

Yes, because when insurance is mandatory, it is tottatly inconcievable it will cause prices to become hugely inflated.

Basically, **** the poor, thats all people like you do, people on low incomes are never the ones to be shouting about how we need XXX taxed/regulated more, its only the well of that cry "well, its only a minor hassle so I think it's OK.

Miserable little bugger you are.