Medford considers pit bull ban

[Wonky]

One guess what comes up as number 1.


ten most dangerous dog breeds

Here we go again?
the DOG is not dangerous. The dog OWNER is dangerous. If one wants to own and really mean and vicious dog, he or she has the right. I don't understand it, but I don't understand lots of stuff.
The responsibility to make SURE the dog is always in complete control, because the dog is bound to respond to his/her nature.

Let's not blame animals for the nature of their DNA. And lets' now not try to legislate our world down to what kind of dogs we can own. Better, we should enforce the position that owners are responsible for the actions of the dog and that penalties for lax control will be severe.

You know: Kind of like parents should be responsible for kids who raise all kinds of hell.

[tvguy]

One guess what comes up as number 1.


ten most dangerous dog breeds

Here we go again?
the DOG is not dangerous. The dog OWNER is dangerous. If one wants to own and really mean and vicious dog, he or she has the right. I don't understand it, but I don't understand lots of stuff.
The responsibility to make SURE the dog is always in complete control, because the dog is bound to respond to his/her nature.

Let's not blame animals for the nature of their DNA. And lets' now not try to legislate our world down to what kind of dogs we can own. Better, we should enforce the position that owners are responsible for the actions of the dog and that penalties for lax control will be severe.

You know: Kind of like parents should be responsible for kids who raise all kinds of hell.

What do you mean here "WE" go again?? It's more like here YOU go again. You are the redundant one repeating your self.
Tia simply posted something she found that brings home the point that Pit bulls are the most dangerous dogs as far as fatalities BY FAR.

You want to blame the owners that's fine. But you haven't ever explained how penalizing owners for their dogs actions will work instead of a ban.

Show me a city , state or country ANYWHERE who has solved the Pit bull problem with your plan of severe penalties for the owner.

Kind of like parents should be responsible for kids who raise all kinds of hell.

How many of these kids were bred specifically to ignore pain, to fight,maim, maul or kill other kids?

[GPnative]

One guess what comes up as number 1.


ten most dangerous dog breeds

Here we go again?
the DOG is not dangerous. The dog OWNER is dangerous. If one wants to own and really mean and vicious dog, he or she has the right. I don't understand it, but I don't understand lots of stuff.
The responsibility to make SURE the dog is always in complete control, because the dog is bound to respond to his/her nature.

Let's not blame animals for the nature of their DNA. And lets' now not try to legislate our world down to what kind of dogs we can own. Better, we should enforce the position that owners are responsible for the actions of the dog and that penalties for lax control will be severe.

You know: Kind of like parents should be responsible for kids who raise all kinds of hell.

The dog is most certainly dangerous and the dog owners can be negligent, and when combined you have a recipe for disaster.

dangerous: able or likely to cause harm or injury.

negligent: failing to take proper care in doing something.

A pit bull is likely more dangerous due to their DNA then say a Golden Retriever. You can't change the fact that pit bulls have a propensity for being aggressive and for some reason they are typically (but not always) owned by people who have a propensity for being negligent.

[Jeep]

One guess what comes up as number 1.


ten most dangerous dog breeds

Here we go again?
the DOG is not dangerous. The dog OWNER is dangerous. If one wants to own and really mean and vicious dog, he or she has the right. I don't understand it, but I don't understand lots of stuff.
The responsibility to make SURE the dog is always in complete control, because the dog is bound to respond to his/her nature.

Let's not blame animals for the nature of their DNA. And lets' now not try to legislate our world down to what kind of dogs we can own. Better, we should enforce the position that owners are responsible for the actions of the dog and that penalties for lax control will be severe.

You know: Kind of like parents should be responsible for kids who raise all kinds of hell.

Wonky, are you a fan of Cesar Millen by chance?

[tvguy]

One guess what comes up as number 1.


ten most dangerous dog breeds

Here we go again?
the DOG is not dangerous. The dog OWNER is dangerous. If one wants to own and really mean and vicious dog, he or she has the right. I don't understand it, but I don't understand lots of stuff.
The responsibility to make SURE the dog is always in complete control, because the dog is bound to respond to his/her nature.

Let's not blame animals for the nature of their DNA. And lets' now not try to legislate our world down to what kind of dogs we can own. Better, we should enforce the position that owners are responsible for the actions of the dog and that penalties for lax control will be severe.

You know: Kind of like parents should be responsible for kids who raise all kinds of hell.

Wonky, are you a fan of Cesar Millen by chance?

I am. I've watched his show numerous times.he quite often drives home the point that the problems people have with their dogs is usually the owners fault.

I watched his show a couple of weeks ago because it was about a couple who had to Pits and one kept attacking the other.
Caesar took the aggressive pit and did his dog therapy thing by letting it live with his big pack of dogs.
He kept it along time. When the owners came back the dog attacked one of Caesars dogs.
Caesar recommended that he KEEP their dog and that they should take another dog home instead.
Basically Caesar couldn't fix this pit bull like he usually does other dogs.

[Scrapper]

I say maybe we should...
Ban Pitbull Owners!

[Wonky]

I say maybe we should...
Ban Pitbull Owners!

That's been my argument here for some time.
Of course that's ridiculous and impossible.
But we could, and should, impose severe penalites on folks who choose to keep dogs known to be potentianly dangerous, and then allow the dogs to be loose to harm folks.

[tvguy]

I say maybe we should...
Ban Pitbull Owners!

That's been my argument here for some time.
Of course that's ridiculous and impossible.
But we could, and should, impose severe penalites on folks who choose to keep dogs known to be potentially dangerous, and then allow the dogs to be loose to harm folks.

I actually tried to find one place on the planet where the problem with pit bulls was solved by imposing severe penalties to the dogs owners.
I didn't have any luck. It seemed to me that approach is locking the barn door after the horse escaped.
If I am to believe Pit bans are put in place to reduce dog bites or even reduce fatalities then I have to look at a plan that actually does just that.
That info is EASY to find with bans. But Finding a place where severe penalties to the dogs owners greatly reduce pit bull attacks?? Not so much.

In 1990, Winnipeg, Manitoba
became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. According to a
Winnipeg city official, the number of pit bull attacks decreased from
29 in 1989 to zero the following year. There are similar bans in
France, Britain, and Germany




In October, 2004, the province of Ontario, Canada announced that it
would
ban
pit bull dogs. When the law passed it became
illegal
to
own, buy, sell, breed, or
import
this kind of dog.
2.
The law allowed people who
currently
owned pit bulls to keep
their dogs, but only under very
strict
rules. These dogs had to be
muzzled
and on
leashes
. New ownership was completely banned
throughout the province. The law will also placed severe
restrictions
and penalties on irresponsible owners of all
breeds
.
Dog owners who break the new law may have to pay
fines
of
$10,000 or spend up to six months in jail.
3.
A number of very serious pit bull attacks in Ontario caused the
government to take this action. In one situation a man was attacked
by two pit bulls and it was necessary for the police to fire over a
dozen bullets before the attack stopped. According to Michael
Bryant, the Attorney General of Ontario, the man was “practically
eaten alive from the ankles up”. In another recent case, a three year
old child needed over 200
stitches
to close the
wounds
he suffered
in a pit bull attack.
4.
Before reaching its decision to ban pit bulls, the Ontario
government spent several months meeting with different groups on
opposite sides of the debate. Since the government made its
announcement, there has been mixed reaction among the people of
Ontario. Many people were
delighted
with the law. However, pit
bull owners as well as many other dog owners were not happy. They
believed that the problem was not the breed of dog. They say that
dogs only become
vicious
when they have irresponsible owners.
5.
While Ontario was the first province in Canada to ban pit bulls,
some cities had already done so. In 1990, Winnipeg, Manitoba
became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. According to a
Winnipeg city official, the number of pit bull attacks decreased from
29 in 1989 to zero the following year. There are similar bans in
France, Britain, and Germany



http://www.esl-library.com/pdf/lessons/155.type1.pdf

[Wonky]

I say maybe we should...
Ban Pitbull Owners!

That's been my argument here for some time.
Of course that's ridiculous and impossible.
But we could, and should, impose severe penalites on folks who choose to keep dogs known to be potentially dangerous, and then allow the dogs to be loose to harm folks.

I actually tried to find one place on the planet where the problem with pit bulls was solved by imposing severe penalties to the dogs owners.
I didn't have any luck. It seemed to me that approach is locking the barn door after the horse escaped.
If I am to believe Pit bans are put in place to reduce dog bites or even reduce fatalities then I have to look at a plan that actually does just that.
That info is EASY to find with bans. But Finding a place where severe penalties to the dogs owners greatly reduce pit bull attacks?? Not so much.

In 1990, Winnipeg, Manitoba
became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. According to a
Winnipeg city official, the number of pit bull attacks decreased from
29 in 1989 to zero the following year. There are similar bans in
France, Britain, and Germany




In October, 2004, the province of Ontario, Canada announced that it
would
ban
pit bull dogs. When the law passed it became
illegal
to
own, buy, sell, breed, or
import
this kind of dog.
2.
The law allowed people who
currently
owned pit bulls to keep
their dogs, but only under very
strict
rules. These dogs had to be
muzzled
and on
leashes
. New ownership was completely banned
throughout the province. The law will also placed severe
restrictions
and penalties on irresponsible owners of all
breeds
.
Dog owners who break the new law may have to pay
fines
of
$10,000 or spend up to six months in jail.
3.
A number of very serious pit bull attacks in Ontario caused the
government to take this action. In one situation a man was attacked
by two pit bulls and it was necessary for the police to fire over a
dozen bullets before the attack stopped. According to Michael
Bryant, the Attorney General of Ontario, the man was “practically
eaten alive from the ankles up”. In another recent case, a three year
old child needed over 200
stitches
to close the
wounds
he suffered
in a pit bull attack.
4.
Before reaching its decision to ban pit bulls, the Ontario
government spent several months meeting with different groups on
opposite sides of the debate. Since the government made its
announcement, there has been mixed reaction among the people of
Ontario. Many people were
delighted
with the law. However, pit
bull owners as well as many other dog owners were not happy. They
believed that the problem was not the breed of dog. They say that
dogs only become
vicious
when they have irresponsible owners.
5.
While Ontario was the first province in Canada to ban pit bulls,
some cities had already done so. In 1990, Winnipeg, Manitoba
became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. According to a
Winnipeg city official, the number of pit bull attacks decreased from
29 in 1989 to zero the following year. There are similar bans in
France, Britain, and Germany



http://www.esl-library.com/pdf/lessons/155.type1.pdf

I'm sure you are more interested in this than I am.
Ban the damn dogs.

[tornado]

I have a pair of gently used Michael Vick Nike size 11 football shoes. I paid $5 for them. Any offers?

[cletus1]

I have a pair of gently used Michael Vick Nike size 11 football shoes. I paid $5 for them. Any offers?

You bastard!

[broadzilla]

http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com...&Itemid=57

South Dakota is trying to get rid of breed bans.

[Tiamat]

Me-OW! 22-pound house cat attacks baby, traps family in roomhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/me-ow-22-pou...y-in-room/

[tvguy]

http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com...&Itemid=57

South Dakota is trying to get rid of breed bans.

That's great they are moving backwards in your state. I'm not surprised. I've seen this anything goes to protect an animal yuppy/hippie mentality before.

Facts mean nothing to these people. They want to ban circus animals , rodeos, captive Orcas, raising mink, trapping for fur, hunting, eating meat.. you name it , toss logic right out the window.
These airhead animals lovers gravitate to these positions at dog shelters, state owned or funded by donations.
And then they tell us with a straight face that all dogs are the same and that it's only the dog owners who are the problem.

Have you ever seen Pitbulls and Paroles? BOO HOO cry me a river, lets save the poor pit bulls

I love animals as much as any of these people. But I don't see the point in allowing a breed that has shown time and time again that they will for (what ever reason you choose). Rip small children apart , crush their bones and leave them fucked up for life.

That's the downright truth of the matter no matter how anyone wants to bullshit about it.

[broadzilla]

I can see that you, tv, are quite passionate in your opinion.
Did a pitbull bite off your manly parts, perchance?

[cletus1]

I can see that you, tv, are quite passionate in your opinion.
Did a pitbull bite off your manly parts, perchance?

I mean that was just plain mean.

[Scrapper]

I can see that you, tv, are quite passionate in your opinion.
Did a pitbull bite off your manly parts, perchance?

That would explain a lot.

[tvguy]

I can see that you, tv, are quite passionate in your opinion.
Did a pitbull bite off your manly parts, perchance?

No, that would take a much larger dog

I'm passionate for the simple reason that it's children who pay the price because we as society allow people to own these dangerous dogs as pets.

It's as simple as that. Simple logic and facts can't be argued. The damage they do to people( mostly children) puts them in a different category than practically any other dog.

And the other reason I'm passionate is because I'm passionate.

[Wonky]

I can see that you, tv, are quite passionate in your opinion.
Did a pitbull bite off your manly parts, perchance?

No, that would take a much larger dog

I'm passionate for the simple reason that it's children who pay the price because we as society allow people to own these dangerous dogs as pets.

It's as simple as that. Simple logic and facts can't be argued. The damage they do to people( mostly children) puts them in a different category than practically any other dog.

And the other reason I'm passionate is because I'm passionate.

And I'll bet we all agree with that.
How tragic to see someone disfigured by a dog attack, especially when it happened when they were an child.
And I suspect we all agree that the dog is innocent, that it takes responsible adults to care for and restrain these animals.
I hope Brodzilia's remarks were tongue in cheek and that Scrapper meant to add a broad smiley face to her post rather than the one she did post.

[broadzilla]

I can see that you, tv, are quite passionate in your opinion.
Did a pitbull bite off your manly parts, perchance?

No, that would take a much larger dog

I'm passionate for the simple reason that it's children who pay the price because we as society allow people to own these dangerous dogs as pets.

It's as simple as that. Simple logic and facts can't be argued. The damage they do to people( mostly children) puts them in a different category than practically any other dog.

And the other reason I'm passionate is because I'm passionate.

And I'll bet we all agree with that.
How tragic to see someone disfigured by a dog attack, especially when it happened when they were an child.
And I suspect we all agree that the dog is innocent, that it takes responsible adults to care for and restrain these animals.
I hope Brodzilia's remarks were tongue in cheek and that Scrapper meant to add a broad smiley face to her post rather than the one she did post.

TV knew I was just playing with him.