Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Vicomte13
Biologically, a dog is a dog. There is no biological difference other than those things evident from appearance between a pound mutt and a purebred whippet.

Of course anyone who knows dogs knows that this is ridiculous. Herding dogs have certain innate behaviors, as do retrievers, spaniels, pointers, and so on. Unfortunately, so do Pit Bulls and Presas and so on. The behaviors of the former breeds are quite harmless which the instinctual behaviors of the latter breeds are qutie dangerous.
33 posted on 05/24/2006 2:00:48 PM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Old_Mil
Kill Pit Bulls!

Vilmar, Right Wing Howler, has always had a distain for that breed of dog. He even tries to chronicle attacks on his blog. I always thought that was a little extreme. Well he was right. ALL PITBULLS NEED TO BE EXTERMINATED!

http://pitbullsyndicate.blogspot.com/2006/05/kill-all-pit-bulls.html

...the 45 caliber justice blog.
34 posted on 05/24/2006 2:07:23 PM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Old_Mil

"Of course anyone who knows dogs knows that this is ridiculous. Herding dogs have certain innate behaviors, as do retrievers, spaniels, pointers, and so on. Unfortunately, so do Pit Bulls and Presas and so on. "

Sure, but what makes a herder a herder, and a retriever a retriever, are those traits - visual or behavioral. If a dog looks like retriever and acts like a retriever, it's a retriever because we say it's a retriever.
It isn't not a retriever because the AKC doesn't define it as a retriever. They're a business, after all, with a strong economic interest in limiting the breed designations to their papers.

Remember the big picture of my comment that "a dog is a dog". I was replying to some posts that said that there is no such thing as a pit bull, because it is not an AKC or CKC recognized breed. So, my comment was aimed at the assertion of authority to define what a breed is reposes with any private club. For their purposes, sure, but not for legal and public safety purposes. They have no pit bull designation, but there are clearly pit bulls. And they clearly have a higher propensity to be involved in vicious mauling incidents than most other dogs in our neck of the woods.

So, it makes sense to me that pit bulls need to be watched more closely and treated with greater circumspection. We CAN'T pretend that a dog is a dog when we're exposing children to dogs. Because you're right, it's not true.
That the AKC and CKC say there's no such thing as a pit bull is probably the best piece of evidence I can give for my point that these private clubs have no authority to define breeds or anything else about their hobby, other than for the purposes of what they do in their club. As far as society goes, there is too such a thing as a pit bull, and it's determined by appearance. Dogs that look like that tend to be on the hit-list of bad actors more often, so they bear watching.

I wouldn't prohibit them.
But I would treat a mauling by a dangerous breed to be criminal negligence by the owner. Keep a dog like that, IF it attacks somebody, you've done the same thing as have an attractive nuisance next to an open pit in your yard: some kid gets broken, and you're a criminal.


43 posted on 05/24/2006 3:25:02 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson