[ZTWsquared]

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:Yeah your right, one dog attack is to many.  I'm pretty we can both agree on that, so why bring it up?

Why bring it up? Because based on your posts you seem much more concerned about your personal ownership of a "pittie" than helping prevent dog attacks; I frankly wasn't sure where your priorities are.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:1) Control Breeding and breeders with better laws. We bred dog agreesion in em, let's breed it out of them. Stop the puppy mills. Stop the breeders than churn these guys out @ $1200 a pop or more. All for the money....not for the love of a dogs. This will help a lot also on controlling the overpopulation of bully breeds, fawk, any overpopulation in our local humane societies.

How does this solve the problem of irresponsible ownership … unless you plan on making breeders also responsible for the actions of the dogs they sell and the actions of the owners they sell to.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:3) Then we need to change our current licensing laws. Fawk this banning breed bulls***  . We have licenses for cars, guns, hunting, fishing, we need em for dogs. Obedience classes should be mandatory. When your even thinking about getting a dog, you should be in some sort of info seminar on teh available breeds and what the breed was about.

We already have dog licenses … the guy in Hamilton was fined $95 for having an unlicensed dog. How can the licensing process be changed that will have any effect on irresponsible ownership of dangerous dogs and the elimination of the risk of dog attack?

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:You shot them down, what else do you want me to say?  You already know our government would be to lazy to set some sort of governing party for breeders & pet owners.  You already know there such things in place for Zoos, restauraunts, smoking in public, unions, etc.  Your already know your all for band aid solutions.

Too lazy … or maybe they don’t believe that what you’re proposing is actually anything but pandering to the dog lobby and in fact does not represent a solution to the real problem.

And a “band aid” solution – that’s your biased characterization and it’s insulting … at least I acknowledge the problem and I’m working for a solution. The only thing you seem to be working for is the status quo and I’m disappointed that you think this is acceptable.

I’ve already acknowledged that a ban isn’t ideal (it’s possible that there is no ideal solution) … but that in no way means it isn’t worth supporting because one attack is too many, and one attack prevented is worth whatever support this idea gets.

If a band aid is all I’ve got then that’s what I’ll use … I’ll continue to put my Focus on the problem and I’ll put my support on anything that might be a solution, and I will gladly switch my support to any better solution that comes along … so over to you and other dog owners on that one. Give me a viable solution that’s better than a ban and is truly intended to eliminate the risk of dog attack and I’ll support it. So far all I’ve heard from the other side of this debate is … I love the breed, don’t punish the dog .. and, oh by the way, a ban won’t work because we won’t let it.

Unacceptable.