Jump to content
RenascentMisanthropy

Come hither..

Recommended Posts

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I reckon they're fucking ugly.

 

And sure, any dog breed can/will bite, but most of them won't take a huge chunk out of you in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont agree with that at all, im a massive dog fan and am actually a owner of a pit bull (id post pics but im at work), he is a great dog and i love him. He has the easist life and has been treated only with love. But we CANNOT take him for walks or anything like that, if he sees another dog he will want to kill it, not play, but kill it.

 

If he see's people who limp or are disabled, he wants to attack them. He can smell fear and as soon as someone is slightly scared of him he fires up and see's it as a sign of weakness.

He is lucky to be alive after the next door neighbours dog got into our yard, Our pitbull (harry) barked like crazy as if to draw our attention and bring us outside. When we got there he had the neighbours dog pinned down and as if barked just to get our attention he bit the dog so hard on its back its spine broke and it died. Then he was so happy he picked up the small dog and dropped it at our feet as if we should be happy.

 

There is something wrong with pittbulls, they are programmed different. It is no doubt its in their blood.

 

Tell me something, can you take your dogs for a walk without a leash? because harry is the only dog we have had this problem with. I will never get another pitbull and would advise against getting one.

 

They are fighting dogs, this is known.

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be glad it was "only" a neighbours dog he attacked, and not one of their kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all people who own these breeds of dogs are shitheads, but a hell of a lot of shitheads will buy these breeds because they're aggressive and won't take care of them properly. Yeh little dogs can also be raised badly and be aggressive but they won't maul a child to death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be glad it was "only" a neighbours dog he attacked, and not one of their kids.

He has already attacked 1 of the kids in our family, put puncture wounds in his head because he pulled his tail. I dont know why my dad didnt get him put down then, the whole situation with that dog is fucked. We have had him for nearly 10 years now so is a part of the family, as long as he doesnt go near people who are disabled, other animals or kids he is fine : /

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, a good deal of "savage" dog owners are either he-man wannabees and/or insecure fuckwits who'd otherwise carry an AK-47 everywhere they went if so allowed.

 

But that aside, most dog breeds have certain dispositions that remain regardless of amount of training or how good the owner might raise it. And when you're talking about breeds that were deliberately created to be agressive, and they have a proven track record of trouble in urban environments, then it's more than enough reason for them to be either heavily controlled or completely outlawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hatred is taught.

 

Killer instinct is inborn.

 

It can come out in any breed but it seems to be bred into the pit B's.

It's like they have bred out the domestic part of dogs and reverted them to the wild state.

 

You can have wild predators in your home (bear, wolf, tiger etc) that really are members of the family but you are aware that at anytime they may be triggered to kill.

Not their fault and not your's but the potential is always present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, a good deal of "savage" dog owners are either he-man wannabees and/or insecure fuckwits who'd otherwise carry an AK-47 everywhere they went if so allowed.

Lots of people get these dogs under the propaganda that hatred is taught and not breed or "ITS NOT THE BREED ITS THE OWNER!", we fell for that.

 

they are a great looking dog

 

Posted Image

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go so far as calling the instinct of an animal to attack a human or other animal as "hatred". But I see where you're coming from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah its not hatred, its a desire to kill. I dont think anyone would be able to explain what a pitbul feels when he see's things that "trigger" him.

 

I actually feel sorry for Harry, he is stuck in a yard and cant go outside and do anything because he is literally too dangerous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

There are a whole heap of behaviours bred into dogs:

 

Herding,

Retrieving,

Pointing,

Chasing,

Barking,

Digging and,

 

 

Fighting......

 

That's pretty much all there is to it.

 

There's no good reason to have them and I'm all for banning them and neutering the ones still out there, with heavy fines/imprisonment and destruction of the dog for those that fail to comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had harrys balls cut off when he was a pup, thinking that would stop the potential aggressive behaviour when he grows up. I wonder how much more of a psycho he would have been with a set of plums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

We had harrys balls cut off when he was a pup, thinking that would stop the potential aggressive behaviour when he grows up. I wonder how much more of a psycho he would have been with a set of plums

Not sure, but I'm sure he would have been more aggressive.

 

Apart from making them less aggressive, my thinking was to eventually breed them out. The problem is that it's actually quite difficult to define a breed so I'm not sure it would work.

 

My brother has a labrador that was set upon by a pit bull. Lucky the damage wasn't too bad but, as he said, this dog was taking no prisoners and it could just as easily decided to attack him once he started kicking it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a friend whos family bread american pit bulls, all their dogs were the most gentle animals you could find.

 

My opinion? Treat any animal bad and it will become a scary beast willing to take a chunk of flesh out of anyone. Treat any animal the way you would like to be treated and you have a genuine companion for life.

 

Pit Bulls imo don't seem any more violent than other dogs I've seen. Same as Dobermans, my brother and his girlfriend have a doberman and shes a sweety, wouldn't hurt a fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is harry haz, he just stares at ya and wags his tail most the time, he does a cool dance as well when he is excited

 

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link didn't work for me.

 

Instincts can be very much a part of an animals nature, and I believe temperament is genetic to a certain extent. I don't think that extends across a whole breed though, every individual is different. There are always exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally against breed specific legislation, it is a crock of shit. Any dog is a potential killer, most people just don't understand dogs. I have lived with dogs all my life, since before I could walk, so have come to understand them very well. It sounds like your dog Harry is just very protective xnatex, agressive too, but not a danger unless provoked.

 

I recall seeing statistics that indicate Pit Bulls aren't even in the top 10 breeds most likely to attack (source) and I am sure this doesn't include all the small dogs that get away with biting anything they can just because they don't hurt, while their owners laugh about it and pick the little thing up. Those kind of dog owners should not be allowed animals at all.

 

In NSW in 2010, the most dangerous breeds are:

1. Australian Cattle Dog

2. Siberian Husky

3. Rottweiler

4. American Staffordshire Terrier

5. Staffordshire terrier

6. Bullmastiff

7. Jack Russell Terrier

8. German Shepherd

9. Border Collie

10. Labrador Retriever

 

I know these stats aren't 100% accurate, but it is a good indicator that any dog can be dangerous, not just the breeds portrayed as such by the media. I've done volunteer work at a dog haven and seen some extremely mistreated dogs, but with the right care and attention they can become loving animals again. Dog ownership needs to be privilege not a right, we can't let a few irresponsible dickheads ruin it for everyone. If your dog seems aggressive today walk him on his leash, its not rocket science. If another dog or child runs over to you and is hurt, you can not be responsible if you did what you could.

 

If a dog escapes from a yard and attacks someone injuring or killing them, it really is a tragedy. If the same person provoked a dog first, or entered its territory and was then attacked, its their own fault and absolutely no sympathy from me. Some dogs are just naturally more aggressive than others, and may require a more dedicated owner, and a more secure environment, such as raised fences, as many dogs can easily jump the average backyard fence if provoked.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to a licensing system, similar to reptile ownership, with the possibility of spontaneous inspection on a dogs living conditions and health/well-being. I will not be giving up on the animals I love because of other peoples ignorance.

 

There's no good reason to have them and I'm all for banning them and neutering the ones still out there, with heavy fines/imprisonment and destruction of the dog for those that fail to comply.

You realise they are proposing just destroying any dog that matches a certain criteria, regardless of its temperament? Do you think that is right?

Edited by p0is0n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why breed them in the first place if their instinct is to kill or fight...

 

its like breeding Brown Bears then when someone gets eaten by one if it gets out saying oh but he loves me so you must of pissed him off therefore its your fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pitbulls are bred to fight and kill.

 

I've known a few pitbulls and while they can be nice animals, there is always a very strong attack instinct that can be triggered. The pitbull owners that I know have always had special rules about what not to do around the animals etc (often rules that you don't see other dog owners expressing).

 

Can't say that I like most dogs but these ones should certainly go imo.

Edited by sm1ddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pitbull owners that I know have always had special rules about what not to do around the animals etc (often rules that you don't see other dog owners expressing).

Don't make eye contact, but never take your eyes off him.

If he asks for your wallet, just give it to him. Don't ask questions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally against breed specific legislation, it is a crock of shit. Any dog is a potential killer, most people just don't understand dogs. I have lived with dogs all my life, since before I could walk, so have come to understand them very well. It sounds like your dog Harry is just very protective xnatex, agressive too, but not a danger unless provoked.

 

I recall seeing statistics that indicate Pit Bulls aren't even in the top 10 breeds most likely to attack (source) and I am sure this doesn't include all the small dogs that get away with biting anything they can just because they don't hurt, while their owners laugh about it and pick the little thing up. Those kind of dog owners should not be allowed animals at all.

 

In NSW in 2010, the most dangerous breeds are:

1. Australian Cattle Dog

2. Siberian Husky

3. Rottweiler

4. American Staffordshire Terrier

5. Staffordshire terrier

6. Bullmastiff

7. Jack Russell Terrier

8. German Shepherd

9. Border Collie

10. Labrador Retriever

 

I know these stats aren't 100% accurate, but it is a good indicator that any dog can be dangerous, not just the breeds portrayed as such by the media. I've done volunteer work at a dog haven and seen some extremely mistreated dogs, but with the right care and attention they can become loving animals again. Dog ownership needs to be privilege not a right, we can't let a few irresponsible dickheads ruin it for everyone. If your dog seems aggressive today walk him on his leash, its not rocket science. If another dog or child runs over to you and is hurt, you can not be responsible if you did what you could.

 

If a dog escapes from a yard and attacks someone injuring or killing them, it really is a tragedy. If the same person provoked a dog first, or entered its territory and was then attacked, its their own fault and absolutely no sympathy from me. Some dogs are just naturally more aggressive than others, and may require a more dedicated owner, and a more secure environment, such as raised fences, as many dogs can easily jump the average backyard fence if provoked.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to a licensing system, similar to reptile ownership, with the possibility of spontaneous inspection on a dogs living conditions and health/well-being. I will not be giving up on the animals I love because of other peoples ignorance.

 

There's no good reason to have them and I'm all for banning them and neutering the ones still out there, with heavy fines/imprisonment and destruction of the dog for those that fail to comply.

You realise they are proposing just destroying any dog that matches a certain criteria, regardless of its temperament? Do you think that is right?

 

Couldn't agree with you more. The huge number of flaws with this legislation boggles the mind really, regardless of whether you agree with the basic concept or not. I for one do not think that BSL is appropriate as apart from individual claims of Pitbull aggression, I haven't actually seen any real evidence to support the potential laws. If you add to that the extreme difficulty of actually identifying a 'Pitbull' then I can't see any way that this type of legislation could possibly work in a fair way, especially if there isn't an easily accessible (ie. not hugely expensive and inconclusive DNA testing) process to argue your case. As with most controversial legislation, perhaps if some effort was spent doing research and consulting experts BEFORE drafting new laws it wouldn't be as necessary to petition politicians to fix them or remove them.

 

 

 

 

This might go against everything this forum stands for but anyone got any stats to back up claims of 'bred to fight' or 'fighting tendancies'? So far as I can tell, Pitbulls were originally bred as a house dog that was then commonly used (not bred) for fighting as a result of their high pain tolerance? Apart from wild claims, I can't seem to find much information saying that Pitbulls were bred for fighting?

 

I am more than happy to be proven wrong though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of dogs were in the past, specifically bred to fight such as Old English Bulldogs. They were originally bred for blood sport such as bull baiting to latch onto the bulls in arranged fights and attempt to bring the beast down. I have owned 5+ boxers who are supposedly descendant from that breed and only one of those ever bit someone, and it was not unprovoked, some stupid kid grabbed his ears (he had an ear infection at the time) and went face to face with him and started growling, he got a warning snap to the face that put a hole in his lip and needed stitches, but can you say it was really the dogs fault in this situation?

 

Pit bull isn't actually a real breed of dog, it could mean pit bull terrier, staffordshire terrier or staffordshire bull terrier for example, and often other similar breeds too. They all come from a similar background as above, trying to breed quick strong dogs for sport hundreds of years ago like bull baiting, bear baiting and other primitive forms of entertainment, so a high prey drive was probably sought after initially. The 'pit' on the name comes from being put into pits full of rats to see how many they could kill in a certain amount of time, or put in pits to fight other dogs.

 

There is some good info on dog history on wikipedia, where I read most of this. That said, they are also very smart and athletic dogs, used for many purposes other than just fighting, like hunting, search and rescue, police dogs, herding, weight pulling, guide dogs, hearing dogs, companionship, guard duty etc. In general, they are actually a very smart and friendly animals but are also very powerful and probably therefore people or other animals feel intimidated by them, which leads to a dislike, and dogs can sense this fear in others and makes a dog uneasy.

 

I am not saying some dogs aren't just flat out vicious and will go for nearly anything or anyone, but deal with dogs like that on an individual basis and be responsible as an owner, don't just eliminate the entire breed.

Edited by p0is0n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dogs are predictable, but children aren't

 

for that reason alone, dogs are dangerous

 

the current explosion of dog owners in suburbia means there are huge numbers of dogs who are bored and poorly trained

 

dogs are very good at detecting fear and imposing their assumed superiority when they detect it; as the owner of a 10 year old who has relatively poor understanding of dog etiquette, and is a big girl's blouse when it comes to any pain, the squeals of horror when a potentially friendly dog jumps up on him (as poorly controlled dogs will do, especially if you are unwise enough to be carrying a ball, or trying to protect it from being taken by holding it up high) can set a dog off to think it's time to really show who's the boss

 

personally i think dogs are unfortunately very often just the yes men of the animal kingdom who make certain people feel happy about having a subservient companion, and while i can acknowledge the other uses of a dog, and have had several i was fond of as a kid, i think that like 4wd vehicles they belong in the wide brown land and not on a suburban street, or sharing a suburban park

that said, we had a part dingo for a while in the late 1960's in darwin, who sadly got run over, and she was a fantastic intelligent delightful thing

 

i am of course biased, as our local park is a designated "dog park", and while most of the owners are sensible, some feel that the opportunity to unleash their dogs in a public space means that it's everyone else's problem if they are uncontrolled or behave poorly due to lack of adequate attention

 

i have had friends with a bull terrier and she was a great dog, but if she wanted to kill someone they would be fucked

 

if dog owners had to pass certification for their competence to command a deadly weapon, like gun owners or car drivers, then i may be more lenient, but it appears far too many owners see dogs as an accessory rather than a potentially lethal domesticated wolf

 

and i believe some breeds are just plain nasty as the default setting - notably a lot of terriers of any size

 

so if the sad owners of pit bulls can't find another breed that scratches their itch, i say "suck it up" - i'd like to have a slug gun for personal entertainment but appreciate in the interest of community safety while i may not be martin bryant i am not daniel boone either

Edited by scruffy1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually an aggressive dog wouldn't notice it's bdy weight in slug pellets.

 

A nice handgun .40 cal or better would keep me happy. A short shotty would be lovely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×