Banning dangerous dogs as family pets wouldn't mean appropriate dogs would be banned from appropriate uses.
The idea of the 'police chihuahua' is just more nonsense - an attempt to ridicule by the ridiculous.
A police dog is a working dog and part of the family as well, and when the dogs working life over most of the time the dog stay with the handler and their family. Same with most working dogs, or should the dog be destroyed when it has finished its working life.
A police dog is a working dog and part of the family as well, and when the dogs working life over most of the time the dog stay with the handler and their family. Same with most working dogs, or should the dog be destroyed when it has finished its working life.
It would seem a bit unfair to destroy the dog after its working life was over so I'd suggest that it could live with its handler as long as all its teeth have been removed and its legs chopped off.
As long as it's kept away from children, the handler would be allowed to take it out for a slide every morning.
My stance has been that trying to go with breed specific legislation is too woolly an approach so identifying types by their ability to inflict serious damage would be a better way.
To what end?
Of course, there's always borderline cases where categorization is involved but it would get over problems such as deciding whether something is a pit bull or a pit bull cross for example. If they both possess jaws that are capable of inflicting serious injury then what it's called doesn't really matter.
I can't believe you still refuse to discuss the issue of how you define these categories.
I mean, here you are, talking about "jaws that are capable of inflicting serious injury".
What's that supposed to mean?
For the gazillionth time, almost any dog capable of chewing a bone can exert sufficient force to "inflict serious injury" so it seems like you'd end up with one giant category filled with every dog bigger than a Cocker spaniel and then the remainer would be sorted in whatever way you saw fit.
And, let's not forget that a fundamental flaw in this sort of system would probably mean that dogs such as Rottie's and Staffies would never end up in the same category despite them probably being equally dangerous (in the wrong hands) in their own way.
Still, I suppose we could just have a category entitled "Stuff Maxwell_Edison doesn't approve of" and then let you sort it all out.
Children are reckless, clumsy and take no heed to warnings about life's dangers. To blame dogs or any other animals for kids' various mishaps (serious and less so) is illogical. If children were supervised better, and brought up with more care, most of these fatalities would never occur. These deaths only seem to happen to kids from certain types of families.
It would seem a bit unfair to destroy the dog after its working life was over so I'd suggest that it could live with its handler as long as all its teeth have been removed and its legs chopped off.
As long as it's kept away from children, the handler would be allowed to take it out for a slide every morning.
It would seem a bit unfair to destroy the dog after its working life was over so I'd suggest that it could live with its handler as long as all its teeth have been removed and its legs chopped off.
As long as it's kept away from children, the handler would be allowed to take it out for a slide every morning.
I find the other human are more of the threat to children, then dogs are And there is data and evidence to prove that. One child dies every 10 days at the hands of their parents in the uk. Then add the ones that are killed by strangers. And the evidence is also out there to see that man is more dangerous to other animals. So humans pose more of a threat to other humans and other animals
It would seem a bit unfair to destroy the dog after its working life was over so I'd suggest that it could live with its handler as long as all its teeth have been removed and its legs chopped off.
As long as it's kept away from children, the handler would be allowed to take it out for a slide every morning.
Well for someone who's so offended you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time insulting and ridiculing me.
If any of my responses have made you feel ridiculous it's probably not because of anything I've said.
Still, things are moving along nicely.
Another couple of pages of petty jibes and perhaps you've finally get around to restating the question I asked you to clarify?
I know you don't like being ridiculed, but you don't half ask for it.
I took it as seriously as anything else you've said.
It's up to you but, if I was you I wouldn't spend too much time making deliberately ridiculous comments.
It's not always possible to tell them from the stuff you mean seriously.
I've been directly insulted in this thread (not by you of course) but surely we don't need to start quoting the T&C's now do we?
Doggy debates are fun, and even if you or others haven't I personally have enjoyed a bit of yours and and M_E's 'back and forth' in this thread!
Obviously I am not telling you what to do, so please feel free to totally ignore this post or not as you see fit.
Peace.
As a rule, "banter" really only works when it's light-hearted and all parties are prepared to accept it.
M_E whines about comments he considers derogatory at every opportunity while, at the same time, adds snidey jibes and insults at every possible opportunity.
And that just isn't cricket. It's simply taking advantage of other people's good nature.
*EDIT*
And, of course, it's not a good way to win people over either. ;-)
if I was you I wouldn't spend too much time making deliberately ridiculous comments.
It's not always possible to tell them from the stuff you mean seriously.
I'm sure intelligent people will have seen straight through it.
It may have even raised a smile in one or two of them.
Comments
Banning dangerous dogs as family pets wouldn't mean appropriate dogs would be banned from appropriate uses.
The idea of the 'police chihuahua' is just more nonsense - an attempt to ridicule by the ridiculous.
A police dog is a working dog and part of the family as well, and when the dogs working life over most of the time the dog stay with the handler and their family. Same with most working dogs, or should the dog be destroyed when it has finished its working life.
It would have been more constructive to just restate your question in an understandable manner rather than wasting your effort with snide comments.
You just can't resist any opportunity to insult other people, can you?
It would seem a bit unfair to destroy the dog after its working life was over so I'd suggest that it could live with its handler as long as all its teeth have been removed and its legs chopped off.
As long as it's kept away from children, the handler would be allowed to take it out for a slide every morning.
Do you have a problem with accurate statements or something?
To what end?
I can't believe you still refuse to discuss the issue of how you define these categories.
I mean, here you are, talking about "jaws that are capable of inflicting serious injury".
What's that supposed to mean?
For the gazillionth time, almost any dog capable of chewing a bone can exert sufficient force to "inflict serious injury" so it seems like you'd end up with one giant category filled with every dog bigger than a Cocker spaniel and then the remainer would be sorted in whatever way you saw fit.
And, let's not forget that a fundamental flaw in this sort of system would probably mean that dogs such as Rottie's and Staffies would never end up in the same category despite them probably being equally dangerous (in the wrong hands) in their own way.
Still, I suppose we could just have a category entitled "Stuff Maxwell_Edison doesn't approve of" and then let you sort it all out.
Yes. When you insult somebody it's a breach of forum rules.
If I was to offer a similarly truthful opinion of almost everything you've said in this thread I would quite rightly receive a ban.
Ah, your true colours are revealed.
No surprise there, I suppose.
so dangerous dog is ok as long as it's got a job
Well for someone who's so offended you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time insulting and ridiculing me.
It seems like you're on a dedicated mission to shoot me down in flames!
Perhaps you need to have a word with yourself.
I find the other human are more of the threat to children, then dogs are And there is data and evidence to prove that. One child dies every 10 days at the hands of their parents in the uk. Then add the ones that are killed by strangers. And the evidence is also out there to see that man is more dangerous to other animals. So humans pose more of a threat to other humans and other animals
There maybe some truth in what you say, there are some humans who may act differently if they were usefully employed.
Erm...
Been there, done that. Try following what's going on.
Would that be an attempt at ridicule by any chance? ;-)
Did you really take my response seriously?
I know you don't like being ridiculed, but you don't half ask for it.
If any of my responses have made you feel ridiculous it's probably not because of anything I've said.
Still, things are moving along nicely.
Another couple of pages of petty jibes and perhaps you've finally get around to restating the question I asked you to clarify?
Oh come on Si, you're better than this.
I've been directly insulted in this thread (not by you of course) but surely we don't need to start quoting the T&C's now do we?
Doggy debates are fun, and even if you or others haven't I personally have enjoyed a bit of yours and and M_E's 'back and forth' in this thread!
Obviously I am not telling you what to do, so please feel free to totally ignore this post or not as you see fit.
Peace.
Link to post?
Nope. It would be an objective appraisal of your proposal.
I took it as seriously as anything else you've said.
It's up to you but, if I was you I wouldn't spend too much time making deliberately ridiculous comments.
It's not always possible to tell them from the stuff you mean seriously.
Yes, of course I did.
As a rule, "banter" really only works when it's light-hearted and all parties are prepared to accept it.
M_E whines about comments he considers derogatory at every opportunity while, at the same time, adds snidey jibes and insults at every possible opportunity.
And that just isn't cricket. It's simply taking advantage of other people's good nature.
*EDIT*
And, of course, it's not a good way to win people over either. ;-)
I'm sure intelligent people will have seen straight through it.
It may have even raised a smile in one or two of them.
An intelligent person just gave you his opinion.
Another intelligent person might decide to consider the advice offered.
Really?
Sorry, I only saw yours. Perhaps it was moderated.
Have you seen this?