Reply #2: geez

[frogcycle]

There is nothing in the second amendment about a right to keep vicious animals. Time to crack down.

I used to try to listen to the American Staffordshire Terrier / American Pit Bull Terrier groups who continue to insist that they can be loyal, loving pets and should not be "discriminated against."

As I understood it, although the breeds had been developed long ago to fight, now they were no more a vicious killer than, say, a St. Bernard would be compelled to head out into a blizzard.

The recent exposure of dogfighting activity changes all that. They continue, to this day, to be selected for fighting. The more aggressive and vicious, the better. Unless you are getting one with impeccable documentation that it is some ten generations away from any fighting dogs, you are knowingly harboring a potential time bomb. The very idea of a Pit Bull Rescue organization is appalling. And I don't know whether ten generations is enough. There are shelties and border collies that are removed many more than that from herding sheep that automatically try to herd whatever they can.

The gun lobby slogan "guns don't kill people; people kill people" does not apply. Pit bulls kill people. Guns don't get up and break their lead and go out and ambush six-year-olds.

While I acknowledge that many, many of these dogs have remained docile and owner-friendly while living to a ripe old age, and it would be hard to take away someone's pet of 6 or 8 years in some sort of "ethnic cleansing" the fact is that "STATISTICS reveal that in the US almost 8 million dogs and cats are euthanized annually because there are no homes for them." link There is no earthly reason for someone to "rescue" an unwanted pit bull in favor of the 22 thousand other potential choices that will be euthanized THAT DAY! Ok, not all are desirable, and not all are nearby, and you might hate cats. So its maybe only several hundred to choose from. Choosing the pit bull and knowing that means a cocker spaniel and a beagle and a golden retriever and a dachshund and hundreds of mixes will die by the end of the day is not just stupid; it is irresponsible. Doing so because you have psychologically married yourself to that breed, made it part of your self-image is selfish, stupid and irresponsible.

Lots of dogs end up homeless simply because irresponsible owners tired of them. But a reasonable proportion proved not to be what the uneducated owner wanted. Or, worse, proved to be defective. Of pit bulls available to "rescue" I have a feeling a significant percentage had already proven to be risky.

My daughter "rescued" a jack russell that turned out to be a head case. The quote from the person who turned him in to the shelter was something like "didn't fit in with the family." well, they are very active and excitable, and she assumed it meant his typical-jack temperament just didn't suit them. Only after she'd had him a while did she learn he is a psycho nutcase that would not fit in anywhere.

My other daughter rescued a pit bull. At age two it killed one of her other dogs, in the third vicious attack. She had partitioned the house to keep them apart, and a visitor opened the wrong door. Being stubborn, she tried to keep it and the remaining dog, but within a month or so it got free and attacked. She finally had the sense to have it put down.

While animal rescue is a great thing, and I support it, not ALL animals should be rescued and with some breeds knowing their full history since birth as well as their ancestry should be equally as important as knowing you prospective partner's sexual history.