Sometimes when I read articles and discussions about breedbans, especially
pit bull bans, I wonder if the author isn't just a wee bit biased against
certain racial and/or socioeconomic groups.

The CEO of the Richmond SPCA has come out for breeding bans on rotts and
pits. After all, those people in that part of town are breeding them. gasp
and horrors!

Beth

diddy wrote:

Because I believe Pitbulls ARE dangerous,

You were talking about doing it to your own dogs.

for the most part, with some
exceptions. But a correctly bred pitbull is agrressive.

Not toward humans. As for dog or animal aggression, there are
plenty of other breeds that will happily fight or kill other
animals. Pit Bulls are not unique in that. They are *dogs*, not
demonic killing machines.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

bethgsd wrote:

Do you not vote?!

Apparently not! And she cares do little for her own dogs that she
wouldn't even try to stop or change legislation that endangered
their well being or lives. *boggle* For someone who talks big
about shooting to kill anyone who tries to harm her animals, she
sure is spineless!

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

bethgsd wrote:
Sometimes when I read articles and discussions about breedbans, especially
pit bull bans, I wonder if the author isn't just a wee bit biased against
certain racial and/or socioeconomic groups.

The CEO of the Richmond SPCA has come out for breeding bans on rotts and
pits. After all, those people in that part of town are breeding them. gasp
and horrors!

It's hugely classist and racist. That's one of the things that bugs
me about folks whose reasoning is similar to Diddy's. It's those
*Other* people who are the problem, dontchaknow?

And I don't believe for a moment that dog fighters are the only
people in Diddy's area who own Pit Bulls. It defies logic, for one
thing. The rural midwest is just not a seething hotbed of dog
fighting. I lived for a long time in Diddy's general area, though
across the state line, and believe me, all sorts of people own Pit
Bulls. A small percentage of owners might actually fight their
dogs, but it's not that common, and certainly *not* ubiquitous. I
tend to agree with JohnF, in that the real problem is not dog
fighters (though they should be punished when caught!), but hysteria
and ignorance.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

"Shelly" wrote in message
...
bethgsd wrote:

Do you not vote?!

Apparently not! And she cares do little for her own dogs that she
wouldn't even try to stop or change legislation that endangered their well
being or lives. *boggle* For someone who talks big about shooting to
kill anyone who tries to harm her animals, she sure is spineless!

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)


And given the legislation that is proposed now and again attempting to limit
certain aspects of gun ownership you would think that she would get
involved,if for no other reason.

Better to have a knee jerk reaction to those dog fighters and killer pit
bulls, doncha know.

Beth

diddy wrote in
:

in thread : Shelly
shelly@cat- sidh.net whittled the following words:


Like I said, I was curious about whether or not you had followed
your "some breeds shouldn't be banned" sentiment to its logical
conclusion. I guess not.

BAD people have guns, so all guns should be banned.

And we all know you don't believe in this way of thinking....so I must
assume you're being sarcastic here. Fine. But what follows is confusing....

BAD PEOPLE have pitbulls therefore all pitbulls should be banned.

You have actually saud things very mych LIKE this. And, you've clearly
stated that in your area, you believe this very thing. I'm curious how you
hold such opposing positions on such similar mindsets.

ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE BAD, therefore all drug paraphanalia should be
banned.

Um, no one has mentioned this, and I don't know many people who believe
it....don;t really get the pont in bringing it up.

Tara

diddy wrote in news:Xns9948C84CE6F15danny@
216.196.97.142:

in thread : Shelly
whittled the following words:
You would really harm
your dogs just because some assholes passed an insane law?


I don't consider it insane at all. I would accept a concession if the
teeth were pulled.

I would do a lifesaving procedure to my dog if it was required. YES.


I don't buy this for half a second.

If people were rallying to scapegoat your breed over all the others that
have done more damage, you would be out there doing seminars, showing off
your dogs' know-how and trainability, presenting your dog in front of city
councils and local government despots.

You would not read in the paper that they were coming after your breed, and
make an appointment to have Tuck taken in for a total tooth extraction by
that afternoon. That is just utter nonsense.

Tara

"diddy" wrote:

I am VERY surprised the American cocker spaniel is not on the bite list
posted by Paul.

When and where did Paul post a "bite list"? It wasn't in this thread. In
this thread, he posted a list which puports to be of breeds that are banned
"somewhere in the United States".
Given that a goodly number of them are obviously local breeds and/or
"designer dogs" (the sort the ConKC registers), if the list is for real, I'm
guessing that quite few of those bans are in small local jurisdictions.

Which is not to say that I support breed bans in any way, shape, or form.