So I assume you are very pro-animal rights?

You are quite correct. A Dogs behaviour is based entirely on its upbringing.
I do find it disgusting how people can mistreat any animal.

For those who need proof that dogs really are man's best friend and love us more than anything else on Earth, try this test. Lock your wife and your dog in the trunk of your car and leave them for an hour. When you open the trunk take note of which one is happy to see you.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

So I assume you are very pro-animal rights?

You are quite correct. A Dogs behaviour is based entirely on its upbringing.
I do find it disgusting how people can mistreat any animal.

People have a voice. Animals need someone that cares to speak for them.

I always find it interesting how people believe pit bulls are born mean. When the truth is, a lot of pit bulls "recruited" to fight in pit fights REFUSE to fight. And when they refuse they are used as bait dogs for the dogs that do fight or executed and tossed away like garbage only to be replaced by a pit bull from a shady breeder, a pit bull stolen from their owner, or a pit bull bought "under the table" from a shelter. The reality is, pit bulls are WONDERFUL companion dogs who would rather use their strength, determination, persistence, extreme love and loyalty on just loving you and playing.

My hope is that laws will become more strict on behavior like this and as time has gone on it has been happening, SLOWLY. But if the law doesn't get these scum bags something will and when it happens I just hope I'm there with my beautiful pit bull watching.

"It is true that Pit Bulls grab and hold on. But what they most often grab and refuse to let go of is your heart, not your arm."

".....seems like people only think pit bulls are happy when ripping someone or another animal to pieces and in the almost two years I've had my pitbull boxer the only thing she wants to do is love on people and lick their faces off.

Animals are only mean when they are treated poorly, abused, sick or in some cases out of fear for there lives.

Pit Balls have are fighter dogs. They were bred for the sole purpose of fighting.
However, bringing up a dog in the right manner, and well, you have a lovely, loyal and friendly pet for the rest of its life.

I completely agree with you that animals need a voice.

Originally Posted by Rox Ann B.

Animals are only mean when they are treated poorly, abused, sick or in some cases out of fear for there lives.

I can take or leave animals myself, but don't you think that far too many people keep them in conditions and under circumstances which are totally unsuitable (particularly prevalent in westernised society)? Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike animals and I wouldn't knowingly harm one, but as far as I'm concerned an animal needs to have a purpose - which can be purely company for some people of course - and the right conditions for it to live under, otherwise it's really just pointless and does nothing at all for the animal's welfare. As you rightly allude, they only become mean when living in poor conditions, which unfortunately is the case for many of them.

But I'm afraid I can't understand the lengths some people go to simply to look after animals just for the sake of it. There are far too many unwanted ones around as it is, and it would be far kinder to the vast majority of them if they were simply put down. Looking after the waifs and strays of the world does little but consume time and money which could be used to far better effect elsewhere.

What I do find disgusting is the way that so many animals, dogs in particular, are specifically bred to exaggerate 'show' traits! Not only is this completely unnatural but in many breeds it can severely damage the animal itself, often causing great distress.

Originally Posted by Midas

But I'm afraid I can't understand the lengths some people go to simply to look after animals just for the sake of it. There are far too many unwanted ones around as it is, and it would be far kinder to the vast majority of them if they were simply put down. Looking after the waifs and strays of the world does little but consume time and money which could be used to far better effect elsewhere.

What I do find disgusting is the way that so many animals, dogs in particular, are specifically bred to exaggerate 'show' traits! Not only is this completely unnatural but in many breeds it can severely damage the animal itself, often causing great distress.

I am sure you already know my response to your first statement.
I completely disagree with you. I believe animal charities are a good thing, and I would like to see some Government money go to animal welfare charities.

If you haven't already noticed, I care a damn site more about animals than I do people.

But I agree with your second point. It is disgusting. People found breeding animals for that purpose, or breeding animals as cheaply as possible (by this I mean not feeding them enough etc) should be prosecuted very seriously under the law.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I am sure you already know my response to your first statement.
I completely disagree with you. I believe animal charities are a good thing, and I would like to see some Government money go to animal welfare charities.

No, no, no! The welfare of people should always come above that of animals. The government wastes enough taxpayer's money as it is without them forking out what could be millions of pounds to do little more than keep animals often long past their sell-by date penned up in the most unnatural of conditions until they are either sold or given to people, many of whom simply want a pet on the cheap irrespective of whether their own circumstances are suitable for the animal or not, or they die. If a charity wants to do this, it's their choice, but certainly not the government.

Originally Posted by Midas

No, no, no! The welfare of people should always come above that of animals. The government wastes enough taxpayer's money as it is without them forking out what could be millions of pounds to do little more than keep animals often long past their sell-by date penned up in the most unnatural of conditions until they are either sold or given to people, many of whom simply want a pet on the cheap irrespective of whether their own circumstances are suitable for the animal or not, or they die. If a charity wants to do this, it's their choice, but certainly not the government.

People cause the harm to animals, thus it should be people who help them.

We clearly have a very different view

EDIT:

I am not saying people don;t come first, what I am saying is animals deserve a good home, a life free from torture by humans.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

People cause the harm to animals, thus it should be people who help them.

I'm not saying that people who harm animals are the cause of the problems, I don't think anyone could condone that. Where I have the issue is with the way that we in Britain in particular seem to place a higher emphasis on animals over people in many cases.

There are just too many animals around - talking household pets here - and a huge number of them are kept in far from ideal circumstances by people who should know better. Apart from the distress it must cause to the animals themselves it can cause huge social problems. Take dog mess on the streets as just one example. According to the recent figures from the Keep Britain Tidy Campaign, 1,000 tonnes of mess are cleared up by local councils from an average of 1 in 10 streets throughout Britain every single day - produced by an estimated 6.5m dogs. Who picks up the bill for the enormous cost of this - not the dog owners themselves, the vast majority of whom simply walk on, but all us council tax payers!

It's also estimated (several different online medical sources) that approximately 2–3% of UK population have antibodies to the Toxocara parasite in their bodies, the vast majority caught from dog faeces - Toxocariasis is a parasitic roundworm which lives in the gut. According to two studies conducted in Ireland, this figure raises to between 15-25% of children who have played in children's play areas/sandpits. Again who picks up the bill for all the 'free' NHS treatment necessary for this - certainly not the dog owners themselves but all British taxpayers.

Sorry, I have no patience at all with people who think "I must have an animal", dogs in particular, with little regard to everything involved, and I have little patience with people who continue to put the lives of unwanted/stray animals above those of people.

Originally Posted by Rox Ann B.

For those who need proof that dogs really are man's best friend and love us more than anything else on Earth, try this test. Lock your wife and your dog in the trunk of your car and leave them for an hour. When you open the trunk take note of which one is happy to see you.

Like it, I know which one I would be happy to see... The one with the wet nose

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm not saying that people who harm animals are the cause of the problems, I don't think anyone could condone that. Where I have the issue is with the way that we in Britain in particular seem to place a higher emphasis on animals over people in many cases.

There are just too many animals around - talking household pets here - and a huge number of them are kept in far from ideal circumstances by people who should know better. Apart from the distress it must cause to the animals themselves it can cause huge social problems. Take dog mess on the streets as just one example. According to the recent figures from the Keep Britain Tidy Campaign, 1,000 tonnes of mess are cleared up by local councils from an average of 1 in 10 streets throughout Britain every single day - produced by an estimated 6.5m dogs. Who picks up the bill for the enormous cost of this - not the dog owners themselves, the vast majority of whom simply walk on, but all us council tax payers!

It's also estimated (several different online medical sources) that approximately 2–3% of UK population have antibodies to the Toxocara parasite in their bodies, the vast majority caught from dog faeces - Toxocariasis is a parasitic roundworm which lives in the gut. According to two studies conducted in Ireland, this figure raises to between 15-25% of children who have played in children's play areas/sandpits. Again who picks up the bill for all the 'free' NHS treatment necessary for this - certainly not the dog owners themselves but all British taxpayers.

Sorry, I have no patience at all with people who think "I must have an animal", dogs in particular, with little regard to everything involved, and I have little patience with people who continue to put the lives of unwanted/stray animals above those of people.

That is not a problem with animals at all. That is another problem with people. They do not take responsibility.

I agree that people should only get an animal if they are willing to take responsibility for it, look after it in the highest of standards, and are able to pay for it.

I for one absolutely hate picking up my dogs mess, however, I would always be willing to clean up after my dog because I love my dog and would never get rid of him.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

People cause the harm to animals, thus it should be people who help them.

We clearly have a very different view

EDIT:

I am not saying people don;t come first, what I am saying is animals deserve a good home, a life free from torture by humans.

Thus who do the harm should be made to pay either financially or jail time.

Assault and battery or even murder is a crime ...

Should assaulting or the murder inflicted on a pet or animal be less than a human life?

Where is it written ...where any life form is more supreme or superior than another other than our Creator, whatever that might be?

Just cause there are other life forms on this planet who require different care ...shouldn't mean they deserve any less civilty or respect.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

That is not a problem with animals at all. That is another problem with people. They do not take responsibility.

I agree that people should only get an animal if they are willing to take responsibility for it, look after it in the highest of standards, and are able to pay for it.

I for one absolutely hate picking up my dogs mess, however, I would always be willing to clean up after my dog because I love my dog and would never get rid of him.

Then what happens if I lose my job out of no fault of mine ...should I then have my family and pets taken from me?

How does or do you determine they or one is responsible?

Originally Posted by Midas

No, no, no! The welfare of people should always come above that of animals. The government wastes enough taxpayer's money as it is without them forking out what could be millions of pounds to do little more than keep animals often long past their sell-by date penned up in the most unnatural of conditions until they are either sold or given to people, many of whom simply want a pet on the cheap irrespective of whether their own circumstances are suitable for the animal or not, or they die. If a charity wants to do this, it's their choice, but certainly not the government.

Respect is something that is earned even from a pet or animal. That my dear requires lots of sincere love, understanding and patience.

Don't think you're fooling any one. People and esp. animals can sense the real thing from a fraud.

Originally Posted by Rox Ann B.

Then what happens if I lose my job out of no fault of mine ...should I then have my family and pets taken from me?

How does or do you determine they or one is responsible?

If you can still feed and care for the animal adequately, then you should not lose your pet.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

If you can still feed and care for the animal adequately, then you should not lose your pet.

Should I like, allow a meager man or men decide that or is it OK for me to let or allow my Creator to decide that???

Originally Posted by Rox Ann B.

Should I like, allow a meager man or men decide that or is it OK for me to let or allow my Creator to decide that???

You seem to be taking this way to personally.

I am sure you agree, that one should only have a pet if they can afford and look after it? Or do you believe people should have a pet if they cannot look after it, cannot play with it, cannot afford to feed it, cannot afford insurance for the pet or vetenary bills?

EDIT:
And who decides is the police.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

You seem to be taking this way to personally.

I am sure you agree, that one should only have a pet if they can afford and look after it? Or do you believe people should have a pet if they cannot look after it, cannot play with it, cannot afford to feed it, cannot afford insurance for the pet or vetenary bills?

EDIT:
And who decides is the police.

True!!! Yet, many have been known to find the means even when they didn't have it to begin with.