Please sign this petition if you are an animal lover

[motorollin]

Dublin City Council today confirmed a list of ten breeds of dog which will be banned from its housing estates and flat complexes.

The ban on certain breeds or crosses of breeds follows ten reported dog attacks on people since the start of the year. Three of the ten people attacked were children.

The ban will be implemented through the Tenancy Agreement and will affect existing and future tenants.

Advertisement
In the first six months of the year 73 banned dogs were handed over by their owners and another 169 were picked up as strays, according to the council.

The ban has been in effect since 1 July and the following dogs are included:

*American Pit Bull Terrier
*Staffordshire Bull Terrier
*English Pit Bull Terrier
*Bull Mastiff
*Doberman Pinscher
*German Shepherd (Alsatian)
*Rhodesian Ridgeback
*Rottweiler
*Japanese Akita
*Japanese Tosa

Please sign the petition below if you agree that this is not only cruel to innocent animals and good owners, but will not solve the problem of bad owners who do not discipline their dogs properly, or bring them up intentionally to be aggressive. It is these owners who need to be legislated against, not the innocent animals!

Citizens against dog ban petition

--
moto

[motorollin]

A blanket ban on all pets in council properties would be different. But they are singling out specific breeds which they deem to be dangerous, with the only justification being that some people were attacked by members of that breed. They don't seem to have considered the upbringing of the animals in question.

--
moto

[motorollin]

And by the way, what do you think they council are going to do with the animals once they are handed in?

--
moto

[motorollin]

It is easier to ensure the safety of others on these estates by banning the people who steal from or attack others than it it is to guarantee that council estate chav scum parents will train their children correctly.

See? Why do we allow humans to behave like animals but destroy animals when they do not behave like humans?

--
moto

[motorollin]

By the way, my feelings about this are absolutely, definitely, 100% not affected by the birth of my Staffordshire Bull Terrier puppy yesterday.

Oh ok, maybe a little bit :-)

--
moto

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:

motorollin wrote:
See? Why do we allow humans to behave like animals but destroy animals when they do not behave like humans?

Because animals are inferior to humans.

Yeah, the way humans destroy each other needlessly and barbarically barely compares to the abhorrent acts which dogs carry out.

CannonFodder wrote:
Great, more dog sh!t on the pavement.

Excuse me? I would never allow my dog to fowl a public place. If it did so it would be strongly reprimanded and the offending substance would be removed and disposed of safely.

Besides, if an animal fowls the pavement, whose fault is it? The dog or the owner?

--
moto

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
They are inferior because we are top of the food chain.  No other reason.

That argument makes no sense at all.

Uncharted wrote:
Sadly, those breeds are more likely to be dangerous. They are more likely to be purchased by owners for that reason.

That's not the dog's fault. The owners who fail to nurture dogs in to loving creatures should be banned from keeping animals. Banning everyone from keeping that breed, regardless of how well they might bring their dog up, is crazy.

Uncharted wrote:
The vast majority of private tenancy agreements don't allow for any pets at all

I know that, but as I said above a blanket ban on pets would be different. The fact is they have, quite unfairly in my opinion, selected breeds which they believe are innately violent, seemingly with no thought to the way in which the animal is brought up.

--
moto

[motorollin]

Animals also cannot launch missiles at each other, sexually assault each other or spread hateful lies about each other.

None of this is really relevant though to the fact that certain breeds are being unfairly judged.

--
moto

[motorollin]

uncharted wrote:
But the issue is that a number of those selected breeds are more likely to be violent.  It varies between individual dogs of course, but you can't forget that dogs are bred by people for certain traits, and that they can be genetically pre-disposed those traits and behaviours.  Aggressiveness is a trait like any other.

Reputable breeders breed for good temperament, not aggression.

--
moto

[motorollin]

Karlos wrote:

CannonFodder wrote:
Animals can't herd us into abbatoirs then slit our throats, then turn us into chops and mince.
Nor can they cook us and eat us.
We are superior to them for this very reason.
We are top dog.

Any suggestion that the "top of the food chain" is occupied by any member of the animal kingdom is total and utter bollocks.

Bacteria are so far on top of the food chain that no multicellular organism gets a look in.

So by CF's logic, since bacteria are the top of the food chain, they should have rights which are equal to (or greater than) the rights of humans.

New petition: ban Domestos!!!

--
moto

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
Animals are only useful for eating or torturing.

I am very surprised that somebody who seems so intelligent in other threads would post such a thing.

--
moto