Well I hope you are right since you could end up betting your life on it. I've had pretty much all gentle PB too but I always kept a close handle on them.Originally Posted by Roper
My issue is more in line with the thread. I don't agree with government's attitude on banning everything.
Last edited by skypilot; October 1st, 2016 at 07:59 PM.
Even more interesting.
The anology Roper, is that no matter how well trained, and I sincerely doubt even 1% of them are trained half that well.....they have minds of their own. Just like extremely, well trained tigers do ( yes I am aware of the differences, that's rather obvious) Not sure where you saw a direct correlation or comparison to risk levels..........just saying that's a bit of s leap. Context is always oh so important.
Guess you didn't read " don't read to much into it, or get carried away" Gilroy.
but in the topic, odd for someone who believes in GC and the registry, your against controls on PBs.
and the fact is, we do have gun controls..lots of them...how many controls on dogs? Especially those that statistically it's clear. As I said you wouldn't risk a child getting near a loaded gun ( storage laws) but more than willing to risk them getting close to a different type of loaded gun. And it's even stranger ( not really, the reason is fairly clear) when you consider how defensive we are towards children, (want me to name a few dozen measures we are happy to take to help protect them, starting with safety seats, back ground checks for people that get close to them) and how strongly we react when a person harms them.
context is oh so important.
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php
Yeah, it's because only bad owners acquire them, no good owners. Has nothing to do with their breeding/dispositions. If that's the case, I'm sure any dog would make a good bird/deer/raccoon dog to.
too funny
read the first section, a few times till it sets in.
1,000 people a day requiring emergency rooms. Don't think guns send that many people to emergency rooms.
read the rest.
and just 9.2% of the dog population.
Virtuallyno controls. None.
i am always amazed at the things people will jump on, like dogs that want to fight over wee bones to gnaw on.
Last edited by JBen; October 2nd, 2016 at 06:51 AM.
Really ?!?.... Dog bites.org.
They might as well be called
" wehatepitbulls.org.
Not a lot of factual information on that site, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From what some might consider a dog lovers source on "Dog bite.org", essentially A) identifying some the "problems" and B) acknowledging its fair
http://dogs.petbreeds.com/stories/40...-breeds-attack
The states do keep some stats, Canada
Jack diddly
part of the problem is that bites/attacks are not compiled by government agencies etc.
unlike say car accidents, shootings, I think even child safety, accidents and.......controls around say bike helmets and so many more. ( hopefully the context will be taken into account and no one jumps on that)...But again the lack of official statistics, reporting, hospital/emergency room recording of data....No controls
Breeding and Breeders: No controls
Want to talk "loaded guns"
I said in the first paragraph, that I think the bigger issue are owners. No controls, none.
My daughter has a staff and I know PBs. All wonderful dogs
Was hoping that to "set the table", and added to the overall context of the post.
Last edited by JBen; October 2nd, 2016 at 10:19 AM.
Agreed.
I prefer controls and responsibility over legislation any day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fact is, many see elimination of risk or mitigating the risk as a socially acceptable balance to the issue, whether that issue is real or peceived by society. I tend to be in that group as long as there are consequences for cases of poor risk management.
The other group sees banning as the answer to risk regardless of whether it can be eliminated or mitigated. That sums up the government view in my opinion, and I think it's wrong.
Everyting has risk. Banning isn't a reasonable solution to risks within society, mitigation and elimination of risk is the solution without elimination of the object itself.
Arguably, exceptions to the above can be made, but generally those are a reasonable risk management philosopy v a ban hammer everytime.
Well said R.
Just consider the wild west breeding and breeders are. As I said theres a loaded gun if ever there was. I think when looking at just that one aspect, Forest Gump might say of any dog, from any breed being brought home "Its like a box of chocolates".......And that loaded gun can fire off in a number of ways....including heath issues, vet bills.....Not to mention with a number of breeds the risk it could (for a number of reasons) do serious harm to people, especially children.
Lol, if you have a few too many and drive home and hurt people, the bar or party host whose house you were at are held responsible.
Not trying to get carried away, but can just anyone sell guns?
We will never ever create Utopia and eliminate all risk, when has "prohibition" ever worked anywhere. We can and should try ti control or mitigate risk.....When it become clear the risk are........
I think is fairly easy to figure out why when it comes to dogs (Guns we have so many controls, including different classificaitons ( prohibited, restricted, non R and then much more) There is literally, virtually no controls, anywhere upto and including simply tracking attacks, recording of data. Warm and fuzzy they are mans best friend".
Last edited by JBen; October 2nd, 2016 at 12:11 PM.
Babysat my grandson for six months with the Dogo beside him most of the time.Thank goodness I had this breed because just from the stats I provided to you he was guarded by one of the safer dogs.
But under the present legislation DOLA my Dogo by description alone puts him in the Pit Bull class with all its liabilities.Sure he has bull dog and bull terrier in his breeding but also has eight other breeds.
So now we have the most HIGHLY breed dog in humane history (source National Geographic 'The Science of Dogs") being legislated against for no good reason.
Its kinda like inventing a new assault rifle and then having it banned right away, the Dogo was only recognized as a breed in the 70,s.
That is most definitely one of the biggest problems with blanket legislation, and casting wide nets. Whether it's "guns" or dogs. With guns we have a very wide range of "breeds" and all kinds of different owners to. Some are responsible, some not, some downright should never be allowed to get close them.
yet rather than address actual problems, or perhaps shore up areas where legislation is "weak". It's always so much easier to cast a big blanket. And as an added bonus, it helps assuage the public who fear black Dogs that they are doing something.
Not really sure what to do about PBs. I have my own thoughts and no real desire to debate "that". I'm not against controls though and for what it's worth. They can start with breeders. Regulate the industry some.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, always great.
Reply With Quote
