Quote:
Originally Posted by FlDebra  Brit -- that article and its supposed LIST is a CROCK! Talk about trying to twist the facts around -- that group does it!("The information here comes from the Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States (RDOWS) , which has just updated the list of breeds that have been banned or restricted in the U.S.") They do say that there are 2 ways to get on the list, either by name or by description! So, somewhere there is a description of pitt bulls that these people have very broadly decided also encompasses pugs, sharpeis, terriers and you name it! That is just ridiculous. I think any sensible person knows the description was never meant to include all the breeds they put on their list! You are sharper than to fall for that article! |
I'm not sure where you are getting that it's a load of crock. I admit, I didn't do any deep searching but that list is on multiple dog forums. I'm going to go search now to find out more info. I could not find anything about it being "fake" on Google, and usually snopes would have something. I believe they are simply saying that this list of dog breeds are banned SOMEWHERE. An apartment complex in, say, California, may have Pugs banned, etc. Irregardless, it just proves how ridiculous BSL really is and you can't just naturally assume your breed is "safe". Ban one breed, you're allowing them to be able to ban any breed they want for any reason.
I posted this above but everyone that is for BSL seemed to pass by some of the facts I posted. In the ten years since the Dangerous Dogs Act banned the last 4 dogs in the UK (Fila, PB 'type', Dogo Argentino and Japanese Tosa) dog bites have
increased by 50%. Clearly... something is NOT working.
We don't wipe out or ban the German's because Hitler was a terrible man.
So why is it any different for dogs? Thanks to BYBers and puppy millers, Golden Retrievers have been on the rise over the last decade or so for dog bites. However, subjecting them to BSL would be... idiotic, right? A knee jerk reaction to a HUGE problem that can not just be fixed by banning them.
I saw this posted somewhere else and totally agree:
Why don't you just go ahead and ban all black people? After all, black people are the cause of violent crime and it's well known that having a group of black people around means that sooner or later, someone is going to get killed, because that's what they do. Black people are vicious killers and are a menace to society.
See how dumb that sounds? Now just replace black person with pit bull.
I don't particularly like Jack Russel Terriers. Most of them I meet are annoying, barky, hyper spazzes who constantly start trouble and get into fights. That's my generalization of them from all the ones I've had experienced with (and lived with). I've only met one JRT that I liked. So because I've had bad experiences with them, I'm going to support that they all be banned? No... that would be silly.