I agree in the sense that some dog breeds aren't necessary and are actively unhealthy for the animal and the breed should be allowed to die out removing the ability for people to be owners of those breeds, and therefore ownerless
Yes? I am not sure I understand what is making you upset. I am not saying kill all the pitbulls, I am saying stop dog eugenics and let dogs just be dogs and love the animal that comes out. If that means that we stop having access to purebred (inbred) Pugs, so be it. Mutts are just as good doggos.
Idk why you think I'm upset. I'm more shocked than anything.
I would think most people tend to support conservation of different animals and whatnot, except for maybe mosquitoes (and even then I'd be hesitant). It's also blowing my mind that you're heavily upvoted. I had no idea some of y'all thought this way.
That said, I'm just going to assume I don't fully understand what you're saying since it seems so batshit crazy to me. It's clear this isn't really an honest, open dialogue anyway, and that's totally fine
Not the OP, but let me step in. Dog breeds are something we have created as humans, they're not wild species that need to be preserved and don't have any effect on ecosystems.
Dog breeding is largely negative at this point as most breeds have outlived their original use and are now seen as designer pets. We continue to breed them as there is continued demand, but quite often these breeds are so inbred that they have genetic health issues. We also oversupply and don't fix/neuter enough, meaning there are always unwanted dogs without homes.
I love dogs, but all of mine have been rescues and I would have no problem with the vast majority of breeds being phased out. There are still some niche cases where dogs are actually used for their breed's purpose (dog sled, search/rescue, hunting, etc) but no, I don't think a chihuahua or a pug should exist and would not be sad if breeders stopped producing more.
Thanks for sharing your POV. It's definitely the first time I've heard something that radical about dogs, which are basically the most beloved living thing in the US, but I can somewhat understand where you're coming from.
I'd definitely support making it more difficult to own a dog, but mostly because many of the dog owners I've met are borderline abusive to their pets (I'm mainly thinking of neglect here). I don't think I could ever support a ban on entire breeds. That's where it starts to seem crazy to me. Make it a felony to own a dog that bites someone or something but don't make it a felony to simply own the dog. We don't even have such laws for people that own guns or swords and surely those lead to more deaths/injuries than dogs.
I feel I should clarify that I don't hold this position because dogs are dangerous or think it should be harder to have a dog. I hold it because I think our breeding programs are creating a lot of animal suffering.
From puppy mills where dogs are kept in horrible conditions, to overproduction of animals so that there aren't enough homes, to propagating breeds that can barely breath so that they have an "adorable" face. Dog breeding is exploitative and re-enforces that dogs are simply a commodity.
I'm not sure a law making it more difficult to own a dog would have the effect you intend, as there are already too many dogs in need of homes. I think a more palatable middle ground to elimination would be regulation of breeders to ensure that they are not producing more dogs than can be homed.
There's a difference between that and policies that discourage breeding, etc.
I don't see many people advocating to outright kill dogs. There are a ton of pits in every shelter and yet people still run backyard breeding operations or tell everyone to get a pit. The breed would be better served if we told people they were more of an advanced breed that need the right kind of owners and environment.
I noticed my guinea pigs have never tried to murder me. Granted in a home invasion they are pretty useless. Unless I like throw their squeaky bodies at said invader or overpower him and make him drink from the water dish as vengeance.
Cow farms supply food for humans. I'm not saying that's the most ethical thing in the world, but it is done. Would dogs serve the same purpose? They would produce less, lower quality meat per head.
Dogs aren't put down for their meat, so the discussion of the acceptability of putting dogs down is not based on their meat.
Thus, the point is about humans simply killing animals.
This isn't about the human imposed utility, it's about if it's fine for humans to decide what animals live and die. Humans don't need beef to live, there are other foods, so humans make a human centric choice to kill cows.
Since humans are deciding what animals.live, based purely on human wants, why would dogs be free of that assessment?
I guess you don't think people should have st. bernards or great danes? I mean, I'm not suggesting people keep wolves or lions as pets, but this bully dog fearmongering is out of control. IMHO, it's not the breed, it's the training and owner.
The term "pit bull" literally refers to a type of dog that has a history of fighting in pits. It's in their name. They are a despicable breed that people should stop breeding. You're so close to understanding...
They are being human, they want to protect their fellow humans from a violent dog breed that is disproportionately responsible for owner and family deaths.
IMHO, it's not the breed, it's the training and owner.
Your humble opinion notwithstanding, Bully dogs are demonstrably more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. It's not some irrational fear, these dogs make up 66% of all fatal dog attacks. Pick any deceased dog attack victim, and it was a Bully or a Rottweiler that killed them.
Training is important and can make a difference in outcomes, but the data overwhelmingly points to aggression and lethality between different dog breeds being a matter of nature more than nurture, and that Bully dogs are on the far end of both spectrums leading to the worst outcomes.
This entire article, which I have seen before, strawmans the issue by pretending that a ban on breeding and adoption is supposed to instantly solve fatal dog bite issues, and that short-term data from a failed small-scale direct-enforcement program (throwing the cops at the problem) is some sort of proof that restrictions don't work.
The reality is that banning the breeding and adoption of pit bulls would result in a long term reduction in the breed. You can even grandfather existing pit bull owners out of the ban and avoid direct enforcement against people's pets, because you only need 12-14 years before the majority of pitbulls in the world were born after the ban, and at that point you can just enforce the law when illegal dogs are found.
If one breed is responsible for 66% of all fatal attacks, and you significantly decrease the number of dogs of that breed, there will be fewer fatal dog attacks. A ban absolutely would work, it just won't feel good to condemn unwanted pit bulls to euthanasia so that other breeds can be prioritized for adoption.
And when there is a fatal dog attack by a banned breed, we can hit the owner with murder charges since someone died in the commission of a crime.
if Todd really cared about people, he'd reduce harm in a way that would actually help; persecuting a particular breed of dogs because their owners don't spay/neuter and train them is asinine.
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death, then that just proves the point of the breed being dangerous and that it should be outlawed. But please, continue to make some more bullshit excuses.
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death,
where is this indicated?
My brother/sister in dogs: 30,000ish years ago, some fucking wolf/dingo/mongrel-mutt threw their lot in with ours. We have, mutually, benefitted enormously. I love dogs and trust a lot more of them than I do humans to do the right thing. This isn't developed anecdotally, it's a lifetime of dogs as part of our family, and operating around working dogs in the military. They deserve our respect, and training is one part of any dog's life that humans need to learn. Most training isn't for the dog, it's for the family members.
I'd recommend anyone with any dog go through training, whether a specific program or simply to acclimate the animal to your house (where and when we go outside and who's food is who's etc.,) but also to train them to react and behave in awkward situations. I've had toddlers lurch across the room, grab my dog's faces and and poke at their eyes - and the toddlers got licked.
Special training? YOU SHOULD TRAIN YOUR ANIMALS PERIOD. you wouldn't trust a cat to behave around a toddler, a dog, a parrot (nearly lost a finger meeting a white parrot once!), hells man/ma'am...
My brother in buddy, they weren't putting words in your mouth. They were using outside factors to answer a question you made.
Want to talk down to someone? How about doing it to someone without having to make erroneous assumptions and jumping the defensive gun? Be adult enough to not belittle people like this chief.
Dishonest statement. That's like saying "Any ceiling fan can decapitate you". Technically true, but so extraordinarily unlikely for most breeds that you should be more worried about car crashes if you fear for your life...
Animals are still animals. It isn't dishonest to say that we should respect them and their space through understanding and recognizing their behavior. Don't allow your love for an animal cloud the basic judgment that every animal may have its moment. Don't be afraid, just be aware.
I have a head canon now about your username origin that you, at least once in your life, had to face a horribly distempered ceiling fan, but just don't remember it because of the capitation.
This one time I was dealing with an exhaust system that split to two separate paths. The blowers were so powerful that if one was on it could move the other backwards which caused the VFD on the other one to fault. It was pretty cool.
Any breed can produce a dog that is prone to snap.
Some breeds are much more likely to do so.
Of those, only a few are both prone to snap and large enough to hurt you.
Oh those, pit bills are far and away the most aggressive.
That said, most pitbulls really are fine. For being the most dangerous breed, there are millions of pitbulls, and a few thousand incidents over a few years.
Why do people go out of their way to defend Pitbulls? This is a breed created by us, to hunt, kill, bite and never let go. They should not be used at pets. There are literarily thousands of good gentle dogs looking for homes, we don't need to defend Pitbulls or keep breeding them.
I was about to say, you would need a LOT of force for a fan blade to cut through your neck meat all the way through. A domestic ceiling fan capable of decapitating someone would be completely excessive.
If a tiny dig nips at you most people laugh it off and you get a break in the skin at most. Happens all the time and no one blinks. If that happens and your dog is 90lbs you can die. Definitely not "extraordinarily unlikely"...just inconsequential for most breeds/sizes.