1 3 4 5  7 8 » 27
I meant that she's "cute" and so stereotypes that apply to the "scary" breeds don't apply - I can't see eskies being banned.

cute is definitely in the eye of the beholder. i can think of few things cuter than a Pit Bull or Boxer, yet they are two of the most common targets for BSL.
I see your point that any dog can bite, any dog can injure but to me comparing a 15lb eskie to a pit bull is like saying carp are potentially as dangerous as barracudas, after all they're both fish and they both have teeth.

i expect your Eskie's not much bigger than the Pom that killed a kid awhile back. (oh noes! killer Poms! they must be banned!) it doesn't take a huge dog to cause significant damage or even death, especially when the victim is a little kid.
Really! I wouldn't mistake a boxer for anything but a boxer, they're such distinctive looking animals.

i think i'm fairly good at breed IDing, especially bullies, like Pit Bulls and Boxers. i wouldn't be as certain as you that i'd never make the same mistake.
There's been no noise (that I'm aware of) about boxers here, or any other breeds aside from pit bulls.

whew! that's okay then!
100 years from now it'll be poodles and pomeranians and not much else, is that your fear?

i'm not afraid, i'm sad and angry that people will not be able to live with the dogs of their choice because a bunch of ignorant people succumbed to mass hysteria.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com / (updated dailyish, apparently)
Let the pit go down. The other breeds simply AREN't going to do the damage the pit is capable of. In doing so, and no longer supporting anti-bsl, you may be saving your breed of preference.

you've hit a new low Diddy. Just lovely.

Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
photos
I meant that she's "cute" and so stereotypes that apply to the "scary" breeds don't apply - I can't see eskies being banned.

cute is definitely in the eye of the beholder. i can think of few things cuter than a Pit Bull or Boxer, yet they are two of the most common targets for BSL.

Well of course I'm talking generalities here, the perceptions of the non-dog immersed average jane.
I see your point that any dog can bite, any ... after all they're both fish and they both have teeth.

i expect your Eskie's not much bigger than the Pom that killed a kid awhile back. (oh noes! killer Poms! they must be banned!) it doesn't take a huge dog to cause significant damage or even death, especially when the victim is a little kid.

Are you telling me that the media reported this killer Pom? I thought a while back it was that the media never reported other breeds attacking, so which is it?

It's better than boxers being targeted, no?
100 years from now it'll be poodles and pomeranians and not much else, is that your fear?

i'm not afraid, i'm sad and angry that people will not be able to live with the dogs of their choice because a bunch of ignorant people succumbed to mass hysteria.

It'll be tough to fight - people tend to have powerful, outraged reactions to stories of dogs mauling their children and when it appears to them - whether accurate or not - that the majority of the most devastating attacks are coming from one particular breed, they're going to react. That's the real world and we all have to live in it.
LF
Sure, as true as all those websites that all that anti-bsl agenda comes from. Someone takes statistics and facts and artfully arrainges them to suit their purposes.

i have no idea which statistics you're referring to. i haven't posted any. as for facts, you're welcome to disprove anything i've posted as fact. i find that's a much more effective way to carry on a debate than each side yelling "you're a liar!" at the other. YMMV, of course.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com / (updated dailyish, apparently)
()
100 years from now it'll be poodles and pomeranians and not much else, is that your fear?

*My* fear is that it would be yet another relinquishment of our freedoms, LM.
IMO, BSL is very similar to GCL (gun control legislation).

It's a typically emotion-driven and knee-jerk reaction to a very complex issue, and misses the target altogether because of the IGNORANCE and HASTE of our lawmakers and general public to "do something."
It's: Fire! Aim! Ready!
It also punishes the vast majority of pitbulls (the ones with absolutely wonderful* temperaments) and their *responsible* owners, the ones who took the time to properly socialize, train, etc. their dogs, because of the actions of a few *irresponsible pitbull owners.

Similarly, GCL punishes all the responsible, peaceful, skillful, gun owners, which constitute perhaps 99.9 percent of all gun owners, because of the irresponsible actions of a few.
With ownership should come RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY.

I would indeed support legislation to dramatically* increase the penalties that lawfully could be assessed to any dog owner whose DOG bites and *seriously injures a human being, no matter the breed, including time in the slammer.
That would put the responsibility where it belongs: On dog owners.

Period.
So to ever get my* vote in support of *any kind of BSL, you'd have to "pry it from my cold dead fingers," too.

Handsome Jack Morrison
*gently remove the detonator to reply by e-mail
Mr. Sharansky, ease my doubts:
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Sharansky.htm
in thread shelly (Email Removed) whittled the following words:
Sure, as true as all those websites that all that ... and facts and artfully arrainges them to suit their purposes.

i have no idea which statistics you're referring to. i haven't posted any. as for facts, you're welcome to disprove ... effective way to carry on a debate than each side yelling "you're a liar!" at the other. YMMV, of course.

I didn't call themn a liar. I simply put a realistic perspective on things based on the way it happened. Janet says because she couldn't argue, that I hit a new low. Thats not an argument.
Let the pit go down. The other breeds simply AREN't going to do the damage the pit is capable of. In doing so, and no longer supporting anti-bsl, you may be saving your breed of preference.

ugh. i don't understand how someone can subscribe to a moral outlook that dictates that it's okay to destroy someone else in the name of saving yourself. i find it monstrous.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com / (updated dailyish, apparently)
Let the pit go down. The other breeds simply AREN't ... supporting anti-bsl, you may be saving your breed of preference.

you've hit a new low Diddy. Just lovely.

And it's pretty hard to hit a new low when you're already at rock bottom.
But she did it, nonetheless!

Handsome Jack Morrison
*gently remove the detonator to reply by e-mail
Mr. Sharansky, ease my doubts:
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Sharansky.htm
Well of course I'm talking generalities here, the perceptions of the non-dog immersed average jane.

okey dokey. so the average person thinks small and poofy is cute and big and nekkid is oogly? i guess that explains why 37,741 Boxers and 1,723 Amstaffs were registered with the AKC in 2004 while only 470 AEs were registered? of the six breeds that outranked Boxers in registration statistics, only one is vaguely small and poofy.
Are you telling me that the media reported this killer Pom?

sort of. the story turned up on a lot of "believe it or not" type jokey news sources. i don't recall where it happened, so there may have been serious local coverage of it. it wasn't local to me, so i don't know. there certainly wasn't much serious, journalistic national coverage of the attack.
It's better than boxers being targeted, no?

cake or death? that's such an odd concept i don't even know how to answer it. the idea that it's okay for one breed to be banned because, hey, umpty other breeds are A-OK, well, illogical to me.
It'll be tough to fight - people tend to have powerful, outraged reactions to stories of dogs mauling their children ... not - that the majority of the most devastating attacks are coming from one particular breed, they're going to react.

yes. and i find that tragic.
That's the real world and we all have to live in it.

you seem to be implying that we all should meekly accept it, though, and i don't agree.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com / (updated dailyish, apparently)
Show more