| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 78978 | 2007-05-04 08:29:00 | Poll - banning pitbulls | qazwsxokmijn (102) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 546970 | 2007-05-05 13:25:00 | We might also ban slighty irritated crocodiles:- www.chinadaily.com.cn Where were the teachers? Parents? Zoo Keeper? Security? Just a link for further comment. It's sad how animals have to die for being themselves. The kids were being idiots and pissing the crocs off with sticks and stones.....crocodile eats one out of instinct. Croc dies for having its natural instinct. *sigh* On a different sidenote, anybody read the Herald today? Apparently some African Park is considering culling many elephants, saying their presence is compromising native plant species. Funny, as killing these elephants defeats the whole purpose of conserving them. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 546971 | 2007-05-07 05:41:00 | And lets not compare Jack Russels and pitballs, Pitballs make the news because they savage people.Its not all down to how the animal is trained at all. tvnz.co.nz hmmmm..... It is interesting that the most number of dog attacks in NZ are from GSD. Bearing this in mind does that mean we should ban the GSD also ? |
jonp (7517) | ||
| 546972 | 2007-05-07 06:10:00 | GSDs attack people mostly because they become too over-protective of their family and/or belongings. | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 546973 | 2007-05-07 06:11:00 | The Jack Russell was defending its territory from intrusion, however that does not exonerate the owner whose property did not conform to the dog fencing law, neither does it excuse the dog, even if understandable. "All dog owners to fence their properties so a visitor can get to a door without coming into contact with the dog." It comes back yet again to the local authorities not properly enforcing existing laws, and enforcing them rigorously. When you want to get a dog from the SPCA, they get your home inspected by the local dog control officer. Your property has to be fenced in conformity with the law. Why do not local authorities carry out the same inspection on all dog owners premises at the time of first registration? |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 546974 | 2007-05-07 06:27:00 | Why do not local authorities carry out the same inspection on all dog owners premises at the time of first registration? Because the dogs weren't registered in the first place. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 546975 | 2007-05-07 06:41:00 | Just for your information - I believe you or Rex weren't at fault. However, was Rex in a close fenced property, and the brat simply kept coming and going? Either way, the brat had it coming. A banning of pitbull terriers and pitbull crosses would mean the banning of thousands of dogs across NZ. The one thing I've noticed about NZ dogs is that SO MANY of them have mastiff/pitbull/staffy in them. I believe even my dog has a quarter pitbull in him. And if that law was passed - my dog would be banned - effective when he dies, to be fair. It would be sad. NZers have grown up with these dogs, am I not correct? Some may disagree with me, but it would certainly be sad to have the extinction of a very noble breed. @Sweep - isn't a Shetland Sheepdog (Shetty) is basically a miniature Rough Collie? Thought they were meant to be super-friendly and patient towards children? What did ya feed your ol' Rex? :D Son, you are a complete and utter, self indulgent, tosser. Just an observation, so nothing personal, but from your comments thus far and unfortunately for you, I believe you are also a gibbering idiot, so there's probably no chance you'll grow out of it. If I've misread your position, I apologise. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 546976 | 2007-05-07 06:42:00 | Because the dogs weren't registered in the first place. Not necessarily so, unregistered dogs is a separate enforcement issue. I see heaps of properties around here where there are registered dogs, but they are either not fenced at all, or, the dog can run freely all around the property including the main access door a visitor would go to. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 546977 | 2007-05-07 06:56:00 | If I've misread your position, I apologise. You probably did. If a child decides to not listen to friendly warnings by a dog owner not to touch the dog, then the dog will eventually snap and bite. In this case, Rex snapped and bit the child, despite three warnings not to touch the dog. How were my posts gibberish? |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 546978 | 2007-05-07 07:05:00 | Young children are not particularly known fore there reasoning skills . It is the duty of the dog owner to ensure that their charge (the dog) does no harm . The fact that an incident took place in full view and under the control of adults, only illustrates that the adults were not taking that duty and the privilege of owning a dog seriously . There is no mitigation in the dog being of a private property, as that property was freely accessible to a child and presumably any child . |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 546979 | 2007-05-07 07:10:00 | Sweep says the child would have been 7 or 8. I just think 7 or 8 is old enough to be deterred by Sweep's warning. Or maybe you meant to say I have no idea how a kid's mind works, in which case I'd have to say you're probably right? |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||