English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Okay so a little girl gets killed by a dog so WHY are innocent dogs getting taken away from their owners and shoved into cages? Possibly even put down if there breed is found out to be a banned breed.
I don't find this fair at all. Does anyone agree with me?

2007-01-04 05:36:23 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pets Dogs

Of course the owners should be punished and not the dog. If the dogs that have been taken away have killed or harmed anyone then thats different but innocent dogs getting taken away just because a dog of their breed has attacked someone is wrong.
Lets say a kid gets hit and killed by someone driving a Fiat Punto, then a week later a woman gets hit and killed by another driver driving a Fiat Punto. Then this becomes a regular occurance and the car is considered dangerous.
Would the car become banned?
And would the police sieze everyones Fiat Punto's? Yes ridiculous isn't it? And thats what i think about this whole load of rubbish.
It could be a Yorkie, a Pug or even a Golden Retriver that has attacked these kids. But it just happens to be pit bulls and staffs. And i wonder why? Because these are the dogs that look 'mean' so people buy them so that they look 'kool' and 'tough' so they train the dog to be aggressive and it ends up getting put down for attacking someone.

2007-01-04 05:51:43 · update #1

FUS 366, I doubt you would be saying that if your border collie attacked someone, would it be okay for it to be shot on sight then yes?
And no i DO NOT own a banned breed. I own a little Jack Russel and I am a genuine dog lover. They can't defend themselves so they need people like us to. Not people who think its okay to kill them just because a dog of there breed has killed a kid.
GRRRR!

2007-01-04 06:03:58 · update #2

23 answers

it is so unfair that is there pet a part of the family so people kill people and they get to lives i guess they think it is only a dog we can take it away and do what ever to the dog

2007-01-04 05:48:37 · answer #1 · answered by loco_sue 3 · 0 0

why on earth do you want a breed that has been banned? of course these innocent dogs do not belong in cages BUT If you look deep inside yourself - if you own a "viscous breed" there is a reason behind it - and only you know the answer. I highly doubt that Beagles, Goldens, Pomeranians, Collies, etc. etc. etc. are being put down for "killing a little girl" get with the program. You can blame all the puppy mills, backyard breeders and pet owners with BIG EGOs who have done a damned good job of ruining the so-called "aggressive breeds" Rotties, am staffs, dobies etc. Let's just hope u are not one of them. After all,, these breeds were not always unstable... it is the popularity factor and all the indiscriminate breeding that follows that ensures the demise of temperaments in these gentle giants.. you should join a dog club in your area and get active in the fancy - you would learn alot and maybe you could help to educate the public./

2007-01-04 13:44:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes, I agree with you. Eliminating a breed of dog is a band-aid solution, that officials are enforcing so it looks like they are doing 'something' to fix the problem. It's not as though the only dog capable of aggression and inflicting serious injuries are pitbulls. There are rotties, dobermans, etc. Heck, bug a golden enough and it'll bite you. Banning one breed will not work - people who want ferocious dogs and abuse them to get them that way will just find another breed to mistreat, until all large breed dogs are banned.

However, on the other side of the coin, pitbulls ARE dangerous dogs. They have a pack mentality and are aggressive by nature, having been trained to be attack dogs for generations and generations. Yes, many pitbulls are sweet, loving dogs, but have you even rough-housed with a pit bull? There's a point where they stop playing, and instinct kicks in, and they can get very aggressive. They have very strong, locking jaws, and they are fast dogs set off by prey running away (or, in this case, perhaps a child). Yes, pitbulls can be wonderful but even well-trained pit bulls can turn vicious. Most of the time, though, it's the ill-trained dogs, dogs trained to be guarddogs. Irresponsible owners who let their dogs lose and don't train them to be submissive are responsible for so many bites / dog attacks. SO, if you get rid of the dangerous breed(s), the irresponsible owners will be less of a problem.

It's a matter of acceptable risk versus logic. No, banning pitbulls will not solve the problem. But will it reduce the amount of fatal attacks by dogs on people? To an extent, yes. Is it worth eliminating the breed? I do not know...

In my region, there is a pitbull ban in effect. However, they are not euthanizing them, just enforcing a rule that all pitbulls must be fixed, and muzzled when in public areas.

2007-01-04 13:44:56 · answer #3 · answered by Zoe 6 · 1 1

What gives them the right is the fact that ownership, importation and breeding of these animals was made illegal 14 years ago. Anybody who has a banned breed under 14 years old therefor knowingly flouted the law when they got the dog and every day since.
In a world without human intervention you could say that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, but these dogs have been bred and genetically refined specifically for their power and aggression. They are effectively genetically engineered weapons developed by people. It's not their fault, but that's hardly the point, is it?

2007-01-04 13:55:17 · answer #4 · answered by nealo d 5 · 0 0

I do not agree with you. Those dogs are savage and should be shot on sight. I bet you twits who are defending them think that it is a good thing to ban guns. Why ? To use your argument: There are no bad guns , only bad owners. I own a Border Collie, now that is a dog, a loyal and trusty friend, not a would-be killer.
Just so that you know; A Pit bull attacked my dog and I killed the pit bull and made the owner pay my vet's bill. I Would do the same again, and extend the same treatment to the owner. And Jack Russells are poxy snappy dogs.

2007-01-04 13:54:39 · answer #5 · answered by Tracker 5 · 0 1

Some dogs are beyond help tho I think its usually more to do with the owner than the actual dog. Some dogs though are so vicious they should not be in a domestic atmosphere, I mean what would YOU do if a member of YOUR family was hurt badly or killed like that little girl? You sound to be a very ignorant person to me if you dont agree with what Ive said here. I havent got much experience with dogs admittedly, Im more into pussycats but if I had one that was more like a tiger and capable of hurting a human being - if such a thing exists - Id either try my best to help it but if it was beyond help and a danger to anyone Id have it taken away and either put in a zoo or released into the wild.

2007-01-04 13:48:50 · answer #6 · answered by jane b 1 · 0 0

I think as long as the dog is socialised well and is not a threat to other dogs and people then yes I agree.
I also believe that it is okay to have a guard dog. As long as it's not aggressive at the wrong times.

I do however agree that Pit Bulls are bred not to subdue another dog but to kill it. This is the problem. Most dogs when they fight will get the other dog to submit and then the fight is over. With Pit bulls they fight until the other dog is dead. When this occurs to dogs and humans it's not acceptable behaviour. Regardless of breed but Pit Bulls are the worst becuase they are bred to kill.

2007-01-04 13:43:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I ride horses and I was at a barn where a rottweiler(probably not spelled right) attacked a little girl. But the thing is when you first come there if you see the dogs out your supposed to call the owner and she would come out so everything was okay, well the little girl was with her babysitter and her older sister(older sister had the horse there) and they saw the dogs out but went inside anyway, but the dogs were fine, its when the little girl started to scream and run away( the dogs were friendly so I'm guessing she wanted to play with them) but when she started to scream the dogs attacked her, and they were put down.

2007-01-04 13:43:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I believe that any animal that attacks a child and kills that child should NOT be permitted to live any longer.

Can you prove the dogs are all innocent? If a particular breed has a tendency to be snappy or aggressive, that animal should not be permitted, by the owner, to be around children...

There really are no BAD dogs...just bad owners. Owners MUST be held responsible for the actions of their dogs.

2007-01-04 13:41:14 · answer #9 · answered by Nibbles 5 · 1 1

I completely agree. Just because a dog is a certain breed, doesn't mean that it's a "bad dog." It's all about how they're raised. You can train anything to be mean, dogs, cats, even kids! How many bad kids do you see out there? Nobody takes them away and shoves them in cages now do they? If people were more responsible with how they live their lives, there would be a lot less innocent victims out there.

2007-01-04 13:42:55 · answer #10 · answered by spikeyblonde_22 3 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers