Should dangerous dog breeds or "fighting breeds" be

It can't happen until people crack down on backyard breeding.

>>2357884
You can still restrict the actual breed, so anyone wanting shots for their dogs, tags, microchips, etc. can't get them unless they register their dog, and then they'd be hit with heavy fines and possibly have their dogs taken away or be restricted from owning future dogs of that breed.

File: breedstandards.jpg (67KB, 594x768px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 594x768px

Slippery slope.

PETA is behind the majority of BSL with the intent to make the breed part as vague as possible(pic related allows labs and poodles). They hire the top jew lawyers to make that shit happen and defend every euthanasia. On top of that, the government abuses BSL to the extreme; taxes are raised to support the new regulation, however in nearly every area where BSL is in place, it's a non profit organization that takes on all the financial responsibilities, and they don't get reimbursed at all for it. All the fines and lawsuits goes to line someone's pockets. To make matters worse, these non-profits end up also having a very bad live release rate as a result, which then proceeds to give the shelter a bad reputation and even less support. BSL often opens the door to other laws being passed silently, like how that BSL in canada tried to get away with allowing any city official to search your home at any time without a warrant. Even if it was enacted, it would likely not change a damn thing unless you did random unauthorized home searches. Only scum and thugs would posses illegal shit, and scum and thugs are the main owners of dogs that attack unprovoked. I'd also imagine that wherever dogs are banned, guns would be banned too. It is usually a liberal thing to ban stuff.

>>2357888
>punishing owners who want to get shots/chipping etc.
gee, surely this wouldn't completely backfire

>>2357891
Pits should be banned though. Them, cane corsos, and a few other breeds are complete negro dogs.

File: 1491119074533.jpg (144KB, 494x1024px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 494x1024px

No

Aside from the fact that the biggest problem is inadequate socialization, any genetic predisposition to violent behavior will be bred out so long as dog fighting, and breeding dogs for fighting is taken seriously by law enforcement and the judicial system. The vast majority of dog owners don't want aggressive or violent dogs.

The Ontario Pit Bull ban was completely ineffective, despite a huge decline in Pit Bulls, there were more reported dog bites in 2016 than there were before the ban.

As >>2357891 pointed out, it's just another way to siphon money from taxpayers with taxes, fines and registration fees. Like gun bans, they don't actually contribute to a safer society, but rather just shift the danger around from guns to knives, or one breed to another, all while justifying an increased budget and larger bureaucracy.

>>2357882
>criminal who mugged two kids
>invaded a guys property
>attacked him
>dogs protected his owner
Where is the problem here?

All dogs should be banned desu

File: 1491055363022.png (287KB, 603x800px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 603x800px

>>2357882
Pitbulls should all be fixed, even breeders, so the retards who want to get mauled eventually can get mauled eventually, but in 10 years the blood thirsty fucks all die out.

>>2357882
Pitbulls are actually more gentle than kittens. It's just bad pet owners who make them look dangerous. Now if you'll excuse me, my pit is hugging my child's neck with it's face again.

>>2358095
lel

>>2357888
Most errisponsible owners (thoae who also let their dogs run loose and who don't train) don't take the dog to the vet, so all you're doing with that is charging responsible owners for otherpeoples mistakes.

This is why humanity can't get to the stars-we're always chasing the weakest link.

>>2358119
Humanity can get to the stars because ftl travel is impossible.

>>2358124
Right now.

>>2357888
This hasn't stopped anyone and non-profits get clocked as pitbulls all the time. Hell my neighbor had a shitfest with his landlord over his white German Shepherd and it was temporary taken anyway because they wouldn't believe him that he wasn't even part woof.

Restrict dog breeding, puppy stores and puppy mills. That is where we need to start, it has to be more regulated so they're not cranking out sick, neurologically fucked dogs to just anyone who on impulse drops 2k on a dog they weren't planning to get.

Pitbulls are so common because they are nearly free due to rampant breeding. They're the feeder rats of the dog world.

>>2358142
Some dog breeds should be restricted, you shouldn't be allowed to get a Caucasian ovcharka as your first dog when you're a 105lb girl. Less aggressive, but still loyal dogs like German shepherds, great pyrenees, mastiffs, etc. obviously aren't going to considered the same as pits, cane corsos, boerboel, etc.

>>2357882

This topic is new and exciting. Thanks so much for contributing.

>>2358162
I'm conflicted because I think cracking down with breeding regulations is more realistic than that. Sure, that won't be perfect and people will still get around it but it'll help a ton.
No way will 'you can't have this dog because you are 105lbs girl' fly as a federal or state law.
Reputable breeders/shelters - as usual - are free to chose what homes their dogs go to but not all of them would be on that, nor would it hold up in any sort of legal issue or court because it's discrimination/sexist.


By going through a reputable breeder(because when have you ever seen a CO in a shelter), these people will drill into it what you need to do, they will give you advice, they can help walk you through shit, answer questions and overall gauge themselves whether or not you are a suitable owner. Shelter adoptions aren't perfect and yes it can be frustrating with some when you're jumping through hoops to adopt a dog but this is when people usually give up and just go buy the first cute puppy they can find.

>>2357882
Should be heavily restricted to the few serious breeders who are willing to try and breed an alternative, less prone to sudden aggression pits
But of course this is never gonna happen

Needless bureaucracy expansion for an overhyped media problem. People like you demand more government when you stub your toe, and then have the gall to complain about your tax returns.

>>2358274
I don't want more government, I just want niggerdogs to stop attacking neighborhood kids for walking their golden retriever puppy within 700 yards of their territory.

>>2358274
This pretty much. It's liberal propaganda trying to get big brother in on yet another aspect of life. Also a good way for shitty owners to brush the blame off of them. Sure, it wasn't your fault you left a two year old alone with a dog for hours, or it was obviously the dog's fault that the niggers let it loose in the neighborhood.

The problem is people don't think, because it's much easier for CNN to think for you.

>>2358166
t. pit owner

File: 1475150455939.jpg (2MB, 2840x1732px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2840x1732px

>>2359300

Sorry, princess. I don't do meme dogs.

>>2359303
>letting the dogs on the sofa

>>2358191
>nor would it hold up in any sort of legal issue or court because it's discrimination/sexist.
I wouldn't be so quick to put labels on this situation, it can be proven in a court of law that a 105lb person is not physically capable of restraining certain animals. If you can't see past gender and sexism when evaluating this issue then it's obvious you are the one with the problem, and any and all arguments from you should be regarded as such. Once you consider the source and strip this kind of hypersensitive nonsense away maybe some real decisions can be made.

>>2359303
>donttalktomeormysoneveragain.jpeg

>>2359305

not all dogs have the same boundaries. for example, cuddle dogs have to be allowed on furniture otherwise you never get quality cuddles. and those dogs look awfully cuddly.

>>2359306
But can it be proven that every dog owner must restrain their dog with physical force? I've never had to do more that a stern yell or raise a newspaper with dogs I've raised. In fact I would imagine that is the case with the majority of decent dog owners.

>>2359323
>But can it be proven that every dog owner must restrain their dog with physical force?
In the example of breed specific bans and regulations I feel that expecting an owner to have complete control over thier animal isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

>>2359328
Having complete control doesn't mean you have to be able to force your animal to the ground. I have complete control over my 2 dogs without even having to touch them.

I mean there's a ton that I see wrong with having a weight requirement for certain dogs, but I'm just pointing out my biggest irk with it that you don't need to beat or wrestle your dog into submission.

The best dog I have ever owned is a border collie pit bull mix.

He's smart as fuck and built like a goddamn tank, he's the best dog ever.

>>2359340
>just pointing out my biggest irk with it that you don't need to beat or wrestle your dog into submission
I agree with you completely on the importance of training.
I also believe that being able to physically restrain your animal, by it voice command or by leash, is the responsibility of any owner.

>>2359328
Breed specific bans are worthless, there's too much skirting of grey areas. They're ineffective. Dog bites attacks stay the same or rise in jurisdictions with breed specific bans.

If you want to ban large dogs ban all large dogs.

>>2359340
You should have to attempt restraining another dog of the same expected breed, size, and build while it's pulling to attack something. You can't let an 80lb Asian woman walk a 180lb dog if she physically couldn't stop it if it decided to snap and fuck some other dog up.

File: 1482392549581.jpg (14KB, 563x563px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 563x563px

>>2358037
THIS!!

>>2357882
Easy, no shitbulls.

>>2359303
sweet doggo

>>2361314
/thread

b-but what about that one time a guy got mauled by a German Shephard??

breed-specific fags BTFO

>>2358037
There isnt. Dogbro is perfectly fine.

>>2358162
This is stupid.

>>2359388
Look forward to a world of toy-sized dogs with this logic.

>>2357882
>>2357882
I'm honestly torn

Should we really have zero restrictions on who can own large and aggressive dogs? These dogs have a free will of their own and cannot be locked in a safe or have the safety flicked on them. Isn't it endangering everyone else if you have these dogs around them? How is it not animal abuse to knowingly breed unhealthy dogs whose puppies have a very high risk of experiencing pain in their life?

At the same time this post here
>>2358031

Couldn't you say that having something that can't be 100% controlled that is dangerous nearby is a violation of the NAP?

How the fuck does that work?

>My neighbor's pit growled at me today violating the NAP so I bazuka'd his dog, but the body chunks landed on a privately owned road that disallows littering, so Privately Owned Road Inc. ordered an airstrike on my home...

>>2357882
I think that if someone's dog harms you, your property, or your family then you should have the right to harm the owner of that dog and the dog itself.

>>2359388
This problem is resolved by everyone owning guns and/or bear spray. You are responsible for your own safety as much as the owner is responsible for her dog, and if she had a bear spray/gun she could also stop her dog if it snapped.