in thread : Shelly
whittled the following words:

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:10:14 -0500, diddy
wrote:

If Muttley's city decides to instill breed bans over 100 pounds,
Muttley is still probably SOL regardless of non-breed status

Or 75lbs or 50lbs.

But I wasn't addressing the list of supposedly band breeds, because
it's irrelevant. Breed bans suck, period, no matter what breeds they
are aimed at, and anyone who really, truly cares about dogs and about
responsible dog ownership ought to be able to figure out why they
suck. *Your* dogs will never be threatened by BSL.

Paul's smug answers, as always, gross me out. I admit that I've got a
low tolerance for assholishness on the subject of breed bans. I know
just how tenuous the line is between allowed and not allowed, once you
allow that line to be drawn. But, since you own magical Elkhounds, I
don't expect you to understand.


Magical? Or well behaved? Your passive aggression seems almost like
jealousy.
anyhow.

IF that list were "real" and I can't believe it is, It shows breeds that
don't even google as actual breeds with breed standards or stud books. How
odd.........
It shows how nothing is too obscure to be exempt from the radar screen.
And if they keep peeling off the top of the threat lists, another breed
then rises to the top thus hitting the radar.
HOW many breeds does the AKC recognise? Without looking it up, I think it's
something like 137 breeds. Doesn't take very long to peel off the top
until "ANY" breed hits the radar. And therein lies the problem.

I hope my breed stays under the radar and unpopular for many years to come.
Did I ever mention they SHED!!!!!!