Well you could say the exact same thing about people. What about the people that are raised poorly and become criminals? What about the people that due to upbringing cause pain and suffering in the world? I can't control that..
It is your right to hate them, but the exact same statements could be used about people.
Ideally, human criminals are removed from society.
When someone suggests that hey, maybe this person committed a crime because they had terrible parents, the answer is "awww, mommy didn't love him enough? Boo hoo hoo. Now let's see how he likes being raped by Bubba in the jailhouse for the next 8 years".
If a dog commits a doggie crime (biting a human), that logic doesn't apply. "He's not a bad dog, he has a bad owner".
I like dogs myself, but I figure if an unprovoked dog attacks or bites a person, the dog has given up his right to live with the people. Does that mean he goes to doggy heaven? Maybe. I don't know where else he's going to go.
That being said, I don't know if "breed bans" are fair either. What about "breed bans" for people? Know what I mean? Like if you want to own a pit bull or some other intimidating-looking dog, you have to be the right "breed" of person. You have to be of a certain age (at least 30). If you have tattoos on your neck, face, or head, you are out. You can have another kind of dog, but not that kind.
This would, of course, be hard to enforce and probably in violation of someone's civil rights, but you get the drift. If you want to own a certain kind of dog because you think it makes you look like a tough guy, you can't.
Thanks man. It's true, I would never harm a dog or anything for that matter.
Pretty sure that trying to aggravate them as you walk by cars falls into this category...sure it's not physical abuse but mental abuse is still a form of abuse.
Last edited by fleuryisgod; 06-18-2012 at 07:29 PM.
Would exterminating them, not be harming them? Be it bears or dogs?
It is a legit question. That was you standpoint in your DESS days.
I've read the link to the stand dess had on dogs. He wanted taxpayers to pay for sterilizing dogs, ban the sale of new dogs, let current owners keep their pets, and exempt all working dogs from the ban. I didn't read anything about killing dogs.
For my part, I'm going to let this thread die. I don't think I'll ever be taken seriously on this topic and I'm not going to bump it when new dog attacks occur as we will just get into circular arguments again. Plus, I imagine this took more moderator oversight than some other threads and I don't want to be responsible for wasting their time.
So even though our population has almost doubled from 1985 to 2010, dog incidents are down over 75% in that same time frame according to the city of Calgary.
Tune into the next Sliver thread "Ongoing City of Calgary dogs now intimidating public into silence Mega-Thread".
Have you ever tried to report a dog bite to the city? Not something that's very easy to do, in my experience. I had a family member that required a significant number of stitches, and the bylaw officer said it couldn't be reported because nobody except the person being bitten and their family members saw it. (Dog was loose) I would have thought the huge bite marks would have been evidence of a dog bite, myself.
Not a lot of info, this is the entire article below:
Quote:
BOZEMAN — Police in Bozeman are looking for the owner of a large, black dog that bit a 3-year-old child at the North 19th Avenue rest area over the weekend.
Police say the owner fled after the dog bit the child at around 4 p.m. Saturday.
The owner is described as a thin Caucasian woman with blonde hair who was driving a silver sport utility vehicle. Police would like to speak with her to make sure the dog was properly vaccinated.
Whether a dog, an owner, or a victim is "responsible" for a dog bite, bailing when a 3 year old is bit is just the wrong thing to do. This particular rest stop is right next to Interstate 90, so fleeing the scene would have been rather easy. Unacceptable.
Researchers, whose report appeared in the journal Pediatrics, found that Finnish babies who lived with a dog - or, to a lesser extent, a cat - spent fewer weeks with ear infections, coughs or runny noses. They were also less likely to need antibiotics than infants in pet-free homes.
Researchers, whose report appeared in the journal Pediatrics, found that Finnish babies who lived with a dog - or, to a lesser extent, a cat - spent fewer weeks with ear infections, coughs or runny noses. They were also less likely to need antibiotics than infants in pet-free homes.
I came in here hoping to see an ongoing mega dog attack and I will leave disappointed, so.........
Researchers, whose report appeared in the journal Pediatrics, found that Finnish babies who lived with a dog - or, to a lesser extent, a cat - spent fewer weeks with ear infections, coughs or runny noses. They were also less likely to need antibiotics than infants in pet-free homes.
Correlation isn't causation though either. It could just be that people with dogs are on average less attentive parents, and didn't notice their kids were sick or take them to the doctor for antiobiotics.
Correlation isn't causation though either. It could just be that people with dogs are on average less attentive parents, and didn't notice their kids were sick or take them to the doctor for antiobiotics.
Good point, what's more likely to be happening is the dogs are killing the children and as such these children that don't get sick or need antibiotics are actually skewing the results when they shouldn't even be included in the study..... Because they're dead...... From a Mega Dog ATTACK..... In CALGARY!!
The Following User Says Thank You to ranchlandsselling For This Useful Post:
Who made you a mod? Nobody, so shut your hole! 
hehe
