Pit Bull Breeder Killed by his own dogs

[fredwiggy]

47 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Dogs are never trained to be useless, they are useless and dangerous from birth and natural predators. They have to be trained to try and knock some of the aggression, slyness and nastiness out of them. Nobody hurts animals more than those who EAT them. There is no higher form of animal abuse than killing them to consume them, no need for it.

As you can see, again, dogs have proven their worth. In all the ways I mentioned and more. Try googling what dogs have done as service animals. Dogs that aren't trained can also be gentle, loving companions, as I have seen many times. It's people that mistreat animals that gets them to be aggressive. Dogs left to be wild can also get aggressive, because they look to their peers on how to act. Much like children growing up without fathers or mothers. Do you actually think animals are here, meaning those used for meat, to over populate and eat themselves out of their habitats? People have multiplied so much that room left for animals is decreasing daily. This is why they have to be kept in check. Also, meat tastes good, and no one on earth will ever outlaw meat eating. No sense arguing the point as it will never happen. And people left untrained are the reason we have wars, domestic violence, murder, theft, drug abuse, animal abuse a,kidnappings, rape and other crimes towards humanity. Are people all useless? Many yes, but not all.

Edited February 22 by fredwiggy

[steven100]

Update  ......

 

13 Pit Bulls put down following deadly attack. 

 

 

source:https://www.yahoo.com/news/13-pit-bulls-euthanized-following-003626760.html

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22 by steven100

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, steven100 said:

exactly,   and if your a responsible dog owner then you won't mind the dog being micro chipped..

It's got to be regulated.  Spot fines imposed if your dog is of the leash or outside the owners yard or property.

 

You've changed your tune.

 

Earlier in the thread you were saying the only reason I keep my dog under control is because he is a vicious beast, just waiting to kill our workers as they lay wet cement, perch on scaffolding and use power tools. If he were safe he could roam free. 

 

Now anyone who doesn't act as responsibly as me should be fined. 

 

Given that Pitbulls make great therapy dogs maybe you would be better suited to one than you think ?

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Eiw…. Someone’s house must reek of veggie fart !!!! 

That's why he's so angry. Hasn't has a decent meal for years...

[steven100]

 

source : https://www.yahoo.com/news/grandmother-died-unsurvivable-xl-bully-101309842.html

 

What are XL bully dogs and what is the law?

An XL bully is the largest kind of American bully dog. Other types include standard, pocket and classic.

The government described them as large dogs "with a muscular body and blocky head, suggesting great strength and power for [their] size".

In England and Wales, the breed has been added to the list of dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It means breeding, selling or abandoning them is illegal.

• Why are American XL bullies being banned?

Certificate of Exemptions, allowing owners to keep their XL bullies, can no longer be applied for.

[steven100]

37 minutes ago, steven100 said:

Update  ......

 

13 Pit Bulls put down following deadly attack. 

 

 

source:https://www.yahoo.com/news/13-pit-bulls-euthanized-following-003626760.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's  13 less possible attacks on kids, the elderly or other dogs.  No paperwork,  no court costs.  job done.

[steven100]

another XL Bully attack ....     hope it gets euthanized ...  and the owner jailed.

 

 

source : https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-charged-over-dog-attack-141246667.html

In court, prosecutor David Devine said a postal requisition had been sent to Mr Ajaz, of Bordesley Close in Birmingham, on January 23. Mr Devine requested a warrant was issued for the accused's arrest.

District judge David Wain granted the request, saying he was satisfied Mr Ajaz knew about the hearing and that no contact had been made with his solicitor regarding reasons why he may not be able to attend.

The attack last autumn prompted Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary at the time, to seek "urgent advice" on whether the American bully XL breed should be banned.

Less than a week later, 52-year-old Ian Price died after being attacked by two American bully XL dogs in Stonnall, near Walsall.

The death of Mr Price prompted Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to vow to ban the breed, saying it posed a "danger to our communities". American XL bullies were added to the banned breeds list on 31 October.

[steven100]

11 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

You've changed your tune.

 

Earlier in the thread you were saying the only reason I keep my dog under control is because he is a vicious beast, just waiting to kill our workers as they lay wet cement, perch on scaffolding and use power tools. If he were safe he could roam free. 

 

Now anyone who doesn't act as responsibly as me should be fined. 

 

Given that Pitbulls make great therapy dogs maybe you would be better suited to one than you think ?

 

I think you confused me with another post member .... I didn't say any of that at all.

 

I think all savage dogs should be put down.

I think everywhere should ban American XL Bully's.

I think Pit Bulls should be banned similarly, which they are progressing that way due to attacks.

I think all dogs should be micro chipped by law, so the bad breeds can be weeded out permanently.

[Roo Island]

On 2/20/2024 at 1:23 PM, Bassosa said:

Dog owners don't kill people, dogs do.

Dog owners do kill people by not training animals like this properly and by not keeping them in secure areas away from others. Happens all to frequently.

 

These animals should be strictly regulated.

[JonnyF]

13 hours ago, steven100 said:

The death of Mr Price prompted Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to vow to ban the breed, saying it posed a "danger to our communities". American XL bullies were added to the banned breeds list on 31 October.

 

Silly, ill considered, knee jerk reaction. 

 

No wonder he's failing so miserably as PM. 

 

The bully breeds are excellent ratters, maybe that's why he is so scared of them...

[richard_smith237]

43 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Silly, ill considered, knee jerk reaction. 

 

No wonder he's failing so miserably as PM. 

 

The bully breeds are excellent ratters, maybe that's why he is so scared of them...

Or it’s an informed and civilised decision made for the benefit of society on a whole rather than continuing to permit such breeds at the whim of emotional want of some dog owners & continuing to see society at risk.

 

Isn't that that governance & laws are for? to protect the public from itself (Rhetorical). 

 

It’s obviously an unmeasurable metric, but, there are children alive today because of such bans.

 

 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Or it’s an informed and civilised decision made for the benefit of society on a whole rather than continuing to permit such breeds at the whim of emotional want of some dog owners & continuing to see society at risk.

 

Isn't that that governance & laws are for? to protect the public from itself (Rhetorical). 

 

It’s obviously an unmeasurable metric, but, there are children alive today because of such bans.

 

 

 

Protect the public from itself? Nanny state nonsense. 

 

"Society at risk" . Hyperbole much?

 

This is simply going after low hanging fruit to try and score some political points. Pathetic from Sunak. If he wanted to make a real difference to lives he'd make a real effort on knife crime, not ban a specific breed of dog.

[transam]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Protect the public from itself? Nanny state nonsense. 

 

"Society at risk" . Hyperbole much?

 

This is simply going after low hanging fruit to try and score some political points. Pathetic from Sunak. If he wanted to make a real difference to lives he'd make a real effort on knife crime, not ban a specific breed of dog.

The UK is not alone, they are banned or restricted in many countries, there must be a reason........🤔

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-ban-pit-bulls

 

I see even in Thailand...........

https://petraveller.com.au/blog/banned-breeds-in-thailand

https://petraveller.com.au/blog/banned-breeds-in-thailand

[richard_smith237]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Protect the public from itself? Nanny state nonsense. 
 

 

Somewhat of an expected response from someone who supports the free ownership of dangerous animals. 

 

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

"Society at risk" . Hyperbole much?

 

Victims of dangerous dog attract are society - why should our children be at risk because you & people like you want to own ‘pitties’  ???

 

 

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

This is simply going after low hanging fruit to try and score some political points. Pathetic from Sunak. If he wanted to make a real difference to lives he'd make a real effort on knife crime, not ban a specific breed of dog.

 

Nothing about low hanging fruit - everything about being part of a civilised society you seem to want not to be a part of….    Perhaps all speed limits should be removed too, because that’s all a bit nanny state too isn’t it ???? 
 

 

Edited February 23 by richard_smith237

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 2/20/2024 at 4:53 PM, fredwiggy said:

I, among others, would love to see this happen, but mosquitoes have a reason to be here. Being a believer, I don't understand why God allowed them to transmit diseases but that's what they do to feed. It could have been done a better way it seems, but we won't know until we ask him.

It's perhaps worth bearing in mind that there are thousands of species of mosquitoes and only a tiny percentage of those carry disease.

 

Quote

There are over 3,500 species of mosquito on Earth [...] Yet, from this great diversity, only a small handful can carry the pathogens that cause disease.

 

Mosquitopia: The Place of Pests in a Healthy World

 

With the kind of genetic knowledge that scientists now have, it should be possible to find methodologies that target only specific varieties of mosquito and leave the others alone. Indeed such techniques are already being developed and tested, with some notable success.

 

Weapon targeting dangerous mosquitoes is on the horizon

 

Quote

A trial in Brazil found that this groundbreaking biotechnology eliminated 96% of the native population of Aedeas aegyti, the mosquito that carries dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya, and Zika

 

[JonnyF]

49 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Somewhat of an expected response from someone who supports the free ownership of dangerous animals. 

 

Well as a Libertarian I'm hardly going to be supporting huge state interference in people's lives, am I?

 

49 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Victims of dangerous dog attract are society - why should our children be at risk because you & people like you want to own ‘pitties’  ???

 

Not sure what this "pittie" is that you speak of, but no children are at risk from my American PitBull Terrier. Because I am a responsible owner who has trained and socialized their dog and doesn't allow him to roam free unsupervised.   

 

49 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

 

Nothing about low hanging fruit - everything about being part of a civilised society you seem to want not to be a part of….    Perhaps all speed limits should be removed too, because that’s all a bit nanny state too isn’t it ???? 
 

 

 

Speed limits are OK in certain areas, like around schools etc. I have no issues with the German Autobahns where there are no speed limits. The key is to train and educate the drivers, much like with dog ownership.

 

The problem with the nanny state is that it breeds individuals who cannot think or take responsibility for themselves. Meaning you need even more laws to keep them in check. It's a vicious circle that results in deeply authoritarian societies. If you want so much state control over people's lives, rules and regulations etc. I'm quite surprised you choose to live in Thailand. Maybe you'd be better suited to China?

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Well as a Libertarian I'm hardly going to be supporting huge state interference in people's lives, am I?
 

But you seem not to mind dangerous dogs interfering with people’s lives. 

 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Not sure what this "pittie" is that you speak of, but no children are at risk from my American PitBull Terrier. Because I am a responsible owner who has trained and socialized their dog and doesn't allow him to roam free unsupervised.   

 

& I completely believe you on this.

& if everyone was as responsible as you and trained the aggression out of their pets we wouldn’t have this issues.

 

Yet, you also point out that you need to keep your dog under supervision when roaming free ?? Why? What are you scared it could do ???  

 

The issue here is that so many others are not responsible owners, and this is where the danger exists - why full licensing must exist & issued only to those who can prove they are responsible… without this, IMO such breeds present an unacceptable risk to society. 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Speed limits are OK in certain areas, like around schools etc. I have no issues with the German Autobahns where there are no speed limits. The key is to train and educate the drivers, much like with dog ownership.

 

The problem with the nanny state is that it breeds individuals who cannot think or take responsibility for themselves. Meaning you need even more laws to keep them in check. It's a vicious circle that results in deeply authoritarian societies. If you want so much state control over people's lives, rules and regulations etc. I'm quite surprised you choose to live in Thailand. Maybe you'd be better suited to China?

Agreed…  although your China comment is as you like to put it, somewhat hyperbolic. 
 

Licensing & placing control on dangerous breeds of dogs is an act of a civilised society. 
 

 

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yet, you also point out that you need to keep your dog under supervision when roaming free ?? Why? What are you scared it could do ???  

 

Nothing. I don't need to. I choose to. Because I am responsible. I understand that some people don't like dogs and my dog is really friendly but also 35 kgs. Some people don't want a 35kg dog trying to play with them so I don't allow that to happen out of respect for them. Same reason I don't let him bother our builders.

 

I had a really sweet chocolate Labrador when I lived in Phuket which I used to take to the beach as a pup. One day when it was around 6 months old it saw a child (I guess 6-7 years old) playing in the sand and ran over to play with it. The child was laughing but the Thai mother was absolutely terrified. I'd assumed nobody could possibly be scared of a 6 month old Chocolate Lab pup but just because there was no danger, didn't mean she didn't feel threatened. Here is a pic from around that time at Kata beach to demonstrate how harmless she looked. So after that I bought an extendable lead. But not because she was dangerous. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The issue here is that so many others are not responsible owners, and this is where the danger exists - why full licensing must exist & issued only to those who can prove they are responsible… without this, IMO such breeds present an unacceptable risk to society. 

 

So address the issues with the owners. Then we'll have more stories like this that popped up on my feed earlier about how dogs can bring out the best in autistic children. 

 

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So address the issues with the owners. Then we'll have more stories like this that popped up on my feed earlier about how dogs can bring out the best in autistic children. 

 

Agree, address the issues - licensing…

 

Your attached story is great, does the BFF dog need to be a PittBull breed, or will a Golden Retriever or Cockapoo etc also do exactly the same thing? 
 

 

I always see Pittbull owners make comments as to how great their dogs are with kids…

 

Golden Retrievers owners never seem to feel the need to highlight their pet wouldn’t maul a child. 
 

Why is that?… is it the underlying knowledge that the breed can be dangerous, is commonly in the news for being dangerous, so they are compensating just as you are ? 

[steven100]

Family Pit Bull attacks baby and then the Parents ...

 

and another sad vicious attack on a baby by the family dog, who also attacked the parents .......

 

 

 

source : https://www.yahoo.com/news/jersey-family-loses-infant-deadly-223810741.html

 

In the early hours of the morning on March 9, Woodbridge Township police responded to the family’s home after receiving a call about an unresponsive baby, according to police and Middlesex County prosecutors. When they arrived, they discovered the child dead at the scene with “serious injuries from the dog,” which had also attacked the parents when they tried to fight it off.

Both parents sustained injuries and were treated at a local hospital, then released later that day. The names of the family haven’t been officially released.

A spokeswoman for the Middlesex County Prosecutor said Monday that the infant was a 3-month-old boy. She added that the dog was a pit bull and had been euthanized after the attack.

[steven100]

and another deadly VICIOUS Pit Bull ATTACK by the family dog ...........