1. Welcome to Game Dog Forum

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

    Dismiss Notice

Myspace List

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Mr Mark, Sep 3, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Marty

    Marty Guest

    oliveah check your PMs on the site ;)
     
  2. coolhandjean

    coolhandjean CH Dog

    Oliveah, I do apologize that we came off so "rude", however, many good dogs have been put to sleep, and many good men/women have had their names drug through the mud, because someone suspected them of being dog fighters. When they were found innocent, it was too late. Their dogs were dead, and they would forever be seen as dog fighters. So, as a community we tend to get a bit angry, when someone just throws Dog Fighter around, willy nilly.

    Also, Gamebred Dogs are the real American Pit Bull Terrier. The Bully House you were talking about are American Bullies (They are Amstaffs mixed with either Mastiff or English bulldog). Many Gamebred APBT are used for shows, weight pulls, and make fantastic family pets, for someone who understands the breed. Now don't confuse Gamebred and Game. A Game dog has to prove it is game, which the many will argue there is only one way to prove a dog is game, and that way is illegal. However, a gamebred dog comes from game dogs, but hasn't proven if it's game or not. So, someone can own a gamebred dog and never do an illegal thing with that dog. I have plenty of friends with gamebred dogs, and none of them are in any sort of illegal activities.

    As for Classic Bulldogs, it has been found out that the site is owned by some teenager. None of those dogs are his. He used pictures of other people's dogs and made up the info. Heck, the kid says that "pit bulls" are protection and guard dogs, which couldn't be further from the truth. "Pit Bulls" are supposed to greet each stranger like a long lost friend.

    You don't have to like or even agree with what the Dogmen of the past have done, but they did make the APBT into an amazing breed. Now people are destroying all the fantastic work they had done by breeding for head size, color, etc.
     
  3. Thank you for clarification on game and gamebed...as that is a confusing concept...but its much clearer now. I agree that bullies are an abomination to the APBT. And most were very RUDE...not "rude". There's not reason for the quotes because I think anyone would agree that it is not in my opinion...but it is a fact. Im not one to hold a grudge though. I appreciate and accept your apology.
     
  4. coolhandjean

    coolhandjean CH Dog

    Well, I put "rude" in quotes, because those many of us were being rude, it was in response to a rude event as well, but two rudes don't make a right. lol.

    I haven't read through this whole thread, so, I don't know if you have apologized yet, either, but I hope you have.

    Many people were wrong on this side, but you were wrong as well, so, I am happy you accept my apology, but I also hope you realize that you weren't completely blameless, either.

    It shows us a bit though that at least you came to the site and took the defenses down a bit, and are now opening up your mind more, or at least, appear to be opening your mind a bit more.
     
  5. KuttersKru

    KuttersKru Top Dog

    Oliveah, what in your mind would serve as a questionable picture or statement? Because I think there are quite a few things that need to be set straight in your reasoning besides the definition of gamebred
     
  6. ykw

    ykw Pup

    amazing. this was either a clueless girl groping for a cliche cause to latch onto, a clueless girl doing the bidding of the H$U$ or (as I suspect) a shill that is really more than one person (I noticed different type styles on the myspace blogs) working with/for peta/H$U$/etc.

    no matter which the case may be, how bizarre that those who "she" attacked so vehemently and even caused the possibility of being raided and/or losing their dogs are now ready to let bygones be bygones and buddy right up and invite the devil in. that's quite a tactic I guess; it seems to have proven effective.

    I was going to reply here a week or so ago and decided not to and will probably not reply further. To engage "her" at all is asking for nothing but trouble, mark my words.


    for the record, "she"; did not remove those blogs of "her" own volition, they were removed by myspace for TOS violations.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2008
  7. LMAO!!! Marty? Are you getting all this? The devil? I think thats a pretty harsh endightment, dont you? Nothing but trouble? And when was I mentioning anything about PETA? I dont think I've advocated for either one of those organizations, so Im not sure where you are getting your information. And I can assure I am one person and all woman at that! The way that I write is no indicator whatsoever of my identity. You are upset because this is no longer an issue? You know it really doesnt matter because I've already explained myself as much as needed to the people who deserved one. I strongly suggest you smother out the flame of your ignorance before you get burned. How do you plan on being an affective apbt advocate when you dont see anything redeeming about those who have alternate views on the issues. You dont know me from a whole in the wall...I may have been misinformed or misled by certain profiles but I definitley was never mellow-dramatic enough to call anyone the Devil. Im glad you didnt comment. In fact, keep your comments to yourself from here on out.
     
  8. KuttersKru

    KuttersKru Top Dog

    Jest in case you missed that
     
  9. Kutterskru,
    I did not miss your question. I actually tried twice on campus to answer but when I submitted both lengthy replies, it did not go through.

    For me, I think it is frustrating because while many signs can indicate suspicious activity...those same signs can also be justified by pit bull advocates: a large yard with dogs steaked out evenly throughout, pictures of agressive looking dogs (snarling/bearing teeth etc), admiration and glorification of dogmen who did in fact fight their dogs. This in particular tends to arouse suspicions. The unfortunate aspect of this is that so many responsible loving owners advocate and admire them as well.

    While I am a novice in this venue (lack of a better word), I cant help but lay in confusion when I see so many people angry about "the list" and accusations of being a dogfighter...but then some of those same people admire and respect dogmen who cultivated not only the breed but the sport as well. I see alot of reponses like "These men made the breed what it is today!" or "This breed would not be what it is today had it not been for these men!". To me (IN MY OPINION), pre-don mayfield, floyd boudreaux, sam cates, maurice carver etc., the men who originated the APBT cultivated the APBT's tempermant to be human friendly, not with the intention of creating a great family pet but as a matter of convenience. They created dogfighting, they bred these dogs for one purpose...to kill and maime other dogs. Now, I should hope non of us would deny that surely the original pit bulls were agressive as any dog in comabt. We fear breaking dog fights up with family pets because we fear being bitten. Those instincts for a dog are natural. But in order for this sport to persist, dogmen did what they had to do...which was to cull man-biters. Excluding man-biters from the picture made the bloodsport safer and easier. So in my eyes, this was not a tempermant bred with the purest intentions...and these dogs being wonderful loving people-dogs is incidental. I think its naive to attribute such wonderful tempermant to these men, because it was with the intention of making dogfighting more doable. And dogfighting...on the street level, hobbyist level and professional level is disgusting repulsive and inhumane. As much as these men are being praised for their "achievments" developing the breed, I dont hear a whole lot of complaints about them being responsible for making the status of dogfighting what it is today. They are indirectly responsible for this sickening epidemic in places like Chicago where the issue is a real problem. Young children are witnessing brutality. They are seeing dogs ripping each other apart first hand. Now just because farmer joe and jimmy john dont expose children to dogfighting, doesnt mean it is not happening regularly. Children are brought to matches by their uncles, fathers, brothers, cousins and they are learning this is OK. They are being desensitized and are not learning about compassion. In a child's development, learning how to treat animals is vital. If these children are shown that blood and violence with animals is alright then what makes us think they will not grow up without compassion for people? We expect young children to understand letting animals kill each other is ok but hurting people is wrong? But young children dont have the mental maturity to grasp that concept. So when a 12 yr old boy witnesses a dying dog urinating and defacating on itself, dying of blood loss and shock...I have to ask myself..."What kind of an affect is that having?". So I dont understand why it is that we can so easily justify what original dogmen did. They are apart of ALL dogfighting. How many dogmen have sold their dogs to men who they knew were trying to get a match dog? They bred gameness so the game would continue. Im disgusted when people romanticize and glorify men who built their legacy on blood and violence. We arent talking about boxing here. These dogs are not trying to win, they are trying to kill. Are we sending mixed messages a bit? Its a catch 22 for me honestly. Without the sport we wouldnt have the dog and the idea of no pit bulls is a tragic thought in itself. But it still does not make that aspect of the breed's history, right. It was, is and always will be immoral. We want to change the pit bull's image and we want to shed a diffferent light but we are still clinging to the "old glory days", and still trying to come to the defense of people who knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Their is blood on their hands and its OUR breed they have affected...and no matter what you say...there are no two ways about it...dogfighting contributes to BSL. I know people say "well match dogs werent people agressive" and "Match dogs would never hurt a person", but hear me out. They contributed to the sports popularity. Others watched them rise to the top of the game through this sport. Dogmen said "The dogs love it. Its what they were bred to do. Its no different than any violent sport.", and people believed it. Just because Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer were perfectly comfortable doing what they were doing, doesnt make it any less sick. What's worse is that these dogs dont choose to be bred for fighting. People say "These dogs are in the box because they want to be". Well they only want to be because a: They have been bred from very animal agressive dogs...which is pre-meditated and b: Because these men trained them and conditioned them and praised them and they associate praise with fighting. There has never been anything natural about dogfighting. MAN removed the pit bull's instincts to submit in comabt and MAN cultivated their agression. We are giving them credit for all the wrong things and then we get upset about BSL. BSL has been enacted due to two types of owners (both are irresponsible). One owner is aquiring dogs they know nothing about. They insist that these dogs are no different than Labs and Retrievers and so they dont go the extra mile to secure their dogs future or their own. People take cute puppies from friends because they want a dog but they have no clue about BSL or the problems that are often faced when you own pit bulls. They think due to their ignorance that you can just leave your dog in the backyard and as long as you water and feed it and make sure its still alive....everything is fine. Well those dogs are not getting socialization that is a neccessity in owning pit bulls. They are also not getting any exercise so when they finally get loose they are out of control and they get over-stimulated and bite someone who is (with good reason) terrified. You dont have to justify your reasons for not liking dogs. Some people are just scared of them regardless of the breed. But given the pit bulls reputation, its make it that much more chaotic. They are the NAIVE and ignorant owners. The other owner is the wannabe dogfighter/tough guy. The people who own these dogs to fight them or to give off a tough image. The city street fighters who are in it for the money but arent breeding these dogs correctly, breeding too often and are using forms of abuse as training methods. These dogs have attacked people.The people who so proudly pose with their pit bull in a picture that screams "DONT F**K WITH ME OR MY DOG WILL TEAR YOU UP!" These same people got wind of dogfighting and either fell in love with the idea of getting into such a lucretive business or they fell in love with the reputation pit bulls have because in inner cities for people who have to be tough...its symbolic. They need to be tough and so does their dog. Its insecurity. But dogfighter or not, the people accelerating the negative image, did not do so without some influence from former/current dogmen; of that you can be sure. But I dunno. Maybe my signals are crossed and Im being unfair. I just think while we can accept the history, we need to be careful about who we advocate for and take note that potential pit bull owners of all kinds are doing their research. So when they see you defending dogmen for ridiculous reasons...depending on what kind of person they are...they are going to do research on dogfighting and dogmen...and learn entirely too much...who's to say whether they wont apply their knowledge to create their own dogfighting ring? I see it all over the internet...people posting procedures and methods of dogfighting for "historical puproses only". Well people take that information and apply it to dogfighting today. OR people will see you glorifying dogmen and they will think "gee...all these pit bull owners seem to love these men who faught their dogs...no wonder the breed is in trouble!" In order for us to change the image...we need to remove ourselves from the worst apects of the breed. But how can we do that when we are still justifying an archaic, bloody, cruel, pre-mediatated history? So people who are fans of dogmen....Ill be honest...arouse my suspicions until they clarify themselves in that they do not condone dogfighting...but then what are people supposed to think? "WE HATE DOGFIGHTING BUT WE LOVE THE MEN WHO DID IT", just doesnt cut it for everyone. Least of all, me.
     
  10. Mr Mark

    Mr Mark Guest

    Oliveah, your above post is very opinionated, which is fine (that's part of free thinking), but that leaves it open to subjection also. You interpret things in a way that isn't always accurate, we all do, including myself, however, I do work very hard at trying to correct my inaccuracies. Anyway, unless you have first hand knowledge of the details you mentioned it's really only hearsay and assumptions and/or misinterpretation of our own or others' inaccuracies. We all fall into this at some point or another, but as long as we do not breech our freedoms and rights it's okay. It's normal and okay to disagree, as long as we do not harm each other first and foremost. And by harm that can mean taking away rights and freedoms, i.e. specific laws and regulations. Listen, I understand that you have very strong beliefs and ideas about the way you would like things to be based on how you interpret them or picture them. Some of those ideas are very good and maybe should be sought after. However, many ideas verge on a breech of freedom.

    I don't want you to take this as an attack or as an inferiority reading, that's not what my intentions are.
     
  11. Mark,

    Are you responding to my most recent comment? I agree that we cant go around trying to attack people and assult their character based on hunches and theories. THAT HAS BEEN MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR. And just as you've said it, ive agreed. The backlash from the myspace list was incidental and my intentions were not to get these people arrested or have their yards raided. I could have taken things a step further and attempted to befriend these people on my personal page and iquire about all their information...including location. But im not interested in using vigilante tactics and strategies to let my presence be known or to make a difference. My idealism does not and has not in any way seperated me from the reality of the issues. These are the conclusions I've come to and Im deeply rooted in my belief that :

    Dogfighting contributes to BSL
    Dogfighting was, is and always will be morally wrong
    The men who cultivated this sport were wrong
    Its wrong to advocate for them
    To effectively pursue a new image for the APBT, we first need to make an effort to leave the past in the past...and not romanticize bloody pages in the dogs history book.
    Anyone who has ever advocated or contributed to the world of dogfighting are in part responsible directly or indirectly for the Pit Bulls negative image
    Gameness and game bloodlines shouldnt validate our dogs
    People who advocate for dogmen need to ask themselves what kind of seeds are the planting in regards to the breed's reputation, as well as potential pit bull owners.
    To cling to the glory days of dogfighting is no better than clinging to the confederate flag and "the war is not over". We need to move on from these burnt out yesteryears.

    So what is your take on it...regarding everything I've discussed?:confused:
     
  12. Mr Mark

    Mr Mark Guest

    My take, is that, exactly like I stated, these are your opinions. They're not facts! I can list arguments to contradict everything your wrote (and very good ones mind you), but i'm not here to give you my beliefs/opinions or positions, i'm here to help educate and assist those that need and have a desire to learn real, hands-on, advice, as well as obtain some myself. However, if my freedoms and rights are being challenged than I will type away...sometimes.
     
  13. Its Not A Challenge I Would Just Like To Be Enlightened.
     
  14. KuttersKru

    KuttersKru Top Dog

    TL;DR...just kidding. Seriously though, the enter and tab buttons are your friend.
    True it is your opinion but there are the opinions of others as well and while I won't romanticize a blood sport, I will not demonize these people either, because while it was legal it was well within thier rights to match another dog and they did infact refine the breed to near perfection as a family pet and working dog while giving up a lot of information that had nothing to do with fighting. But now that you mention it, how many working dogs or dogs in general were in fact bred with the purest intentions and what intentions count as "pure"? Many working dogs were in fact bred to cause or assist with the death of another animal, whether he be dog, hog, rabbit or deer. When a Saluki runs down a rabbit we can all safely assume he's not giving it a hug, nor is it foreplay. Yet the creators of these breeds are not villainized nearly as much as a person who fought a dog and doesn't do it anymore due to it's ilegal status or breeding the dogs for another purpose, such as hunting. Why? Because society says it's a-ok.

    An evenly staked yard means nothing, provided that a dog has adequate food and shelter and as an advocate you honestly should already be aware of this. Owners of working huskies, malmutes, and hunting dogs also often stake thier dogs, and it has diddly to do with the intention of matching them so much as it has to do with a dog having his own needed space. Breaksticks are also nothing that should EVER raise alarm for someone that is an advocate of the breed, since if you own an APBT, you should also own a break/parting stick.

    Also, dogfighting is not rampant beause of the dogfighters of old, it's rampant among wannabe's and criminals because to be perfectly honest, there's a lot of money in it and the breed has been made popular through idiocy. Winning dogs and the selling of thier pups rake in big bucks, it's a sad fact. And the government and HSUS are trying to swat flies with hand grenades in the way that they try to weed out people that fight and those that do not. I'd also like to point out that gameness is not so much about combat, as much as it is to be able and eager to work despite the threat of injury. As a matter of fact the Irish Kennel Club required all terriers to possess a "Teastas Mor" certificate of gameness untill 1968 where a terrier had to sucessfully draw a badger in a certain amount of time. Yet, a Wheaten or Kerry Blue is not a fighting dog. Go figure.

    Misinformed and stupid owners are everyone's problem. But while you point out people with dogs on stakes, I point out people that take thier pits to a dog park. That's a no no. Do we all want a pit to be dog aggressive? No, but it's what it is and people need to stop assuming that a pit is a poodle.

    On a final note, the dogmen of old created this breed (and while I'm not promoting them to the status of saint-hood, there is a lot you can learn about this breed yet from them) they are not responsible for it's destruction. It was only when the breed became popular for people that refuse to educate themselves and/or want to make a quick buck off a popular breed that random dogs stated going apeshit and biting people. And while it's okay to step away from a dog fighting aspect of the breed, it is NOT okay to step away from the dog's appearance and working drive. It happened to the GSD, it happened to the Border Collie, it happened to the Labrador, lets not have it happen to this dog too

    edit: The APBT does not need a new image. Rather, people need to remember the image it once held internationally, which was an intelligent, bold and loyal working dog that was as suited for a child's playmate and watchful protector as he was catching hogs
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2008
  15. simms

    simms CH Dog

    First off your oppinion is formed from what you have read and what others have told you......your entitled to your oppinion. However you lack the experience and knowledge to back up your oppinions.

    This breed is not meant for every one. Your interppertation of the breed is not the same as mine. The thoughts that you carry about what this breed should and shouldn't be are what will be the extinction of it!

    Good day.
     
  16. KUTTERSKRU,


    "...while I won't romanticize a blood sport, I will not demonize these people either, because while it was legal it was well within thier rights to match another dog and they did infact refine the breed to near perfection as a family pet and working dog while giving up a lot of information that had nothing to do with fighting."

    I dont think saying these men were wrong is demonizing them. I have not said they were evil. I just dont think they were right. And whether or not the sport was legal has nothing to do with it. Either you believe its wrong or you dont. Its not like "Well it was ok back then because they werent breaking the law...but NOW its wrong." Thats like saying that it WAS ok to own slaves and oppress black people before the Civil Rights movement....on a lesser scale. "Well within their rights"? So if you believed it was their right back then, why is it wrong now? Morality and government laws are two different things. It was wrong and is wrong. That is why its illegal today. And dogfighting came about because animal baiting was made illegal in 1835. It was easier to conduct covert matches with dogs rather than larger animals so they went with what worked. So it wasnt until the sport became more popular that it caught the government's attention and they then made that illegal as well. And I dont think we need a statistic or a record keeping account to say that the sport did continue...its safe to say that...because it still does.

    "But now that you mention it, how many working dogs or dogs in general were in fact bred with the purest intentions and what intentions count as "pure"?"

    Dogs were bred for different purposes and do a service to humans. Collies hurded sheep, GSD and Rotts are guardians, terriers hunt vermon/badgers/racoons etc. Some dogs were bred soley for the purpose of companionship such as the Cavalier King Charles and the Pug..And hunting wild animals and using dogs to track and hold animals until a hunter arrives is slightly different. I dont agree with fox hunting though. You are comparing hunting animals that naturally reproduce in the wild and can often be over-populated to breeding and raising dogs to basically kill each other? Not to mention that hunting laws give limitations on how many of a certain animal you are permitted to hunt within that hunting season. Im certain there are people who kill animals needlessly...bears and moose and lions and mountain lions...and that is wrong as well in my eyes. Its wrong to waste these animals. If you are hunting something and you are planning to kill it and use the meat through the winter and not waste any of the animal....and you are not out there killing past the legal limits...then that doesnt trouble me. DEER for example are overpopulated and kill people in car accidents every year. Hunting is our way of keeping the population under control. Now personally I would be perfectly happy if there was no need for hunting either.But unfortunately if we were to stop hunting animals altogether certain numbers would increase, blurring the line between civilization and wildreness. Ever see those videos of deer jumping in front of people's cars? Now what is the need for baiting dogs against each other. Hunting takes patience and skill and either you are going to get something or you are not. Its not quite as pre-meditated as breeding dogs, raising and conditioning them and then placing bets and money on which dog will win the match...and let these two domesticated animals that you have bred for agression try and kill each other. Now whether a dogman picks his dog up in a match or not to save him doesnt matter because he already knew what was probably going to happen when he put him down in the box to begin with. He set his dog up to be put in harms way.

    "An evenly staked yard means nothing, provided that a dog has adequate food and shelter and as an advocate you honestly should already be aware of this. Owners of working huskies, malmutes, and hunting dogs also often stake thier dogs, and it has diddly to do with the intention of matching them so much as it has to do with a dog having his own needed space. Breaksticks are also nothing that should EVER raise alarm for someone that is an advocate of the breed, since if you own an APBT, you should also own a break/parting stick."

    These are not the issues I was discussing in my comment. I was merely saying they are known with both responsible apbt owners as well as dogfighters. Malamutes and Huskies are often staked out you are right but they are sled pulling dogs that have to work as a team to carry people to other locations. So where else would you be able to keep a large number of those dogs? Huskies and Malamutes are not as popular as pit bulls and they are also not dogs that are discriminated against and abused nearly as much. Their owners are not being scrutinized because their are no "huskie/malamute issues" making national headlines. They also are not used for any other purpose as opposed to apbt that are used for illegal activities as well as legal activities.

    "Also, dogfighting is not rampant beause of the dogfighters of old, it's rampant among wannabe's and criminals because to be perfectly honest, there's a lot of money in it and the breed has been made popular through idiocy."

    So the original dogmen have NOTHING to do whatsoever with dogfighting today? That doesnt make sense seeing as they are SOLEY RESPONSIBLE for "making the breed what it is today. So...they faught dogs....and people today fight dogs and they usually play by the same rules of the same game....but they are in no way connected? You are just saying it is merely coincidence and they cant be counted responsible for the breed popularity as a game dog that does not quit fighting? Because THAT is the attraction. People LOVE that about these dogs...and some people...alot of people use those qualities for their own benefit with no regard to the animal. This is what I am talking about when I say "exploiting the breed". So no one ever caught wind of dogmen engaging in the sport? No one ever thought "Hmm...ya know...maybe I should get into that cuz these guys are making money."? They were men who had nothing to do with all the negativity around this breed's image, and they are only credited for the positive? Hm....:confused:

    "I'd also like to point out that gameness is not so much about combat, as much as it is to be able and eager to work despite the threat of injury."

    Im quite aware of this and have been for sometime now. But let me ask you....how do you know whether a dog is game? How do we preserve gameness? And how do we know that dogs are in fact game? I mean people are so ademant about these dogs being game and from game bloodlines....are they not concerned the gameness gets watered down over time?


    "As a matter of fact the Irish Kennel Club required all terriers to possess a "Teastas Mor" certificate of gameness untill 1968 where a terrier had to sucessfully draw a badger in a certain amount of time. Yet, a Wheaten or Kerry Blue is not a fighting dog. Go figure."

    Ill be honest and Im not trying to be rude at all...Im not sure what the point you are trying to make here is? That gameness transcends all types of terriers? Ok. But we dont game-test terriers anymore...I mean maybe there are some out there but they dont breed for that characteristic because there really is no need.

    "Do we all want a pit to be dog aggressive? No, but it's what it is and people need to stop assuming that a pit is a poodle"

    I think any pit bull rescue organizations will tell you that desiring a well-tempered, well socialized animal and believing that nothing good comes from a large amount of dog agression is trying to make pit bulls into poodles. If a dog happens to for whatever reason have a certain amount of agression towards dogs...that for whatever reason cannot be managed even through large amounts of socialization...then what can you do? But breeding bloodlines of dogs that are dog agressive just to "preserve the true american pit bull"...is another story. I AM NOT SAYING ALL DOGS FROM FIGHTING BLOODLINES ARE DOG AGRESSIVE. To me that really isnt the issue anyway. I am not upset because pit bulls tend to be dominant dogs and dont take well to other dogs trying to dominate. Thats just the breed and that can be managed anyway.

    "It was only when the breed became popular for people that refuse to educate themselves and/or want to make a quick buck off a popular breed that random dogs stated going apeshit and biting people."

    Oh? Well who is responsible for making the dog so popular and for it being the dog of choice in dogfighting today? How did such a reputation on tenacity or persistance become so widespread....are you sure it didnt have ANYTHING to do with the men you say knew these dogs best?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2008
  17. Well what is it exactly that Im missing? I mean whats the big secret that Im not in on? When you examine the puzzle long enough you start to put all the pieces together.
     
  18. JuckingFerk

    JuckingFerk Big Dog

    If you had done this from the start there would be no problem. You might find it wise to take your own advise in the future.

    You might try to take on another cause also. You know they are cutting down the rain forest??? Thought I might help get you started.

    Ferk out
     
  19. pennsooner

    pennsooner CH Dog

    Olivia, I take it you think Dog aggression should be "bred" out?

    To what degree? Is "any" acceptable? I do know of some breeders who will cull for "extreme aggression", in other words will cull when a dog is so dog aggressive that its impossible to do anything legal with them. But I don't know of and have never met a breeder, even of AmStaffs who believes in culling for ALL animal aggression. You'd just end up with a hollow shell of a dog because you'd have bred out all the prey drive.
     
  20. coolhandjean

    coolhandjean CH Dog

    I'm sorry if this was already said, but the lack of paragraphs hurt my eyes, so, I couldn't read all of the post.

    Most of BSL is caused by dogs that attack people, which are illbred dogs and dogs that are mistaken as APBT. It is very rare, though it does happen, that a Gamebred dog attacks someone, so, to claim the dog fighting is the cause of BSL is way off. I will say that it might help the opposition to use it as a reason to further their case, but most of the time you hear someone calling for BSL is right after some mutt attacked a human being.

    The image of our breed wasn't destroyed by the Dog Men of the past, but by the Wanna-bes of the present. The people who think it's cool to make their dog human aggressive. The people who parade their dogs around as an extension of their penis (or whatever a woman would want to add on). The image was destroyed by people who didn't understand the history of the breed, and thinks they are supposed to be man biting monsters. The Wanna-be's that fight their dogs in an alley and hook them to car batteries when they lose are too blame.

    Also, Clinging to the Confederate flag? Most people in the South who fly the Confederate flag don't fly it as a "I wish we still had slavery". They fly it as a symbol to those who were lost in battle. To honor those men who fought bravery and gave their lives, not to keep slavery, but in an effort to stop Fed. govt. from becoming to obtrusive. Plus it is the battle flag, not the Country flag. Flying the battle flag is like flying a USMC flag, it symbolize the men, not the country.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page