Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Audiofreaks wrote:so wait, rottweilers not included under this act right?
JoeBama wrote:RIPEBREDFRUIT wrote:it ALL boils down to RESPONSIBILITY of the OWNERS.
If someone is not Financially Capable of owning a dog then they should not be allowed BY LAW to have one or face Charges.
All the bickering about -omg how much it costing to Own one of these dogs now, if YOU truly LOve and care about your animal then SHUT yuh damn mouth, pay what youre supposed to, provide a SECURE and safe home for it and you should be alright.
we all know u can't see past ur own nose... smh..
Pretender wrote:16 cycles wrote:Why were specific breeds of dogs targeted in the legislation?
Specific breeds were targeted because those who drafted the legislation were uninformed, uneducated about the real issue and too lazy to do their own research so they copied an outdated piece of legislation from another country.
pugboy wrote:it was copied blind from the UK law version, hence those particular dogs of which they probably don't even have any locally apart from the pitbull.
Whoever copy it is a poor excuse for a lawmaker and MP.
He/she must have copied plenty stuff in school.....Pretender wrote:16 cycles wrote:Why were specific breeds of dogs targeted in the legislation?
Specific breeds were targeted because those who drafted the legislation were uninformed, uneducated about the real issue and too lazy to do their own research so they copied an outdated piece of legislation from another country.
nervewrecker wrote:Why dont the muffler bearings put a system in place where potential owners have to meet a specific criteria before they can own a dog? eg Fenced area, financially able to support a dog, willing to seek training for the dog (if necessary) and some sort of effin psychological evaluation of the potential owners so they dont mistreat the animal.
Too much kants buying dog (esp pitbulls as bling) and dont have a secure place to keep them or even treat the dog good, they you wondering why they misbehaving.
DVSTT wrote:pugboy wrote:it was copied blind from the UK law version, hence those particular dogs of which they probably don't even have any locally apart from the pitbull.
Whoever copy it is a poor excuse for a lawmaker and MP.
He/she must have copied plenty stuff in school.....Pretender wrote:16 cycles wrote:Why were specific breeds of dogs targeted in the legislation?
Specific breeds were targeted because those who drafted the legislation were uninformed, uneducated about the real issue and too lazy to do their own research so they copied an outdated piece of legislation from another country.
He's right! The government's dangerous dog act is a blatant copy of the UK's 1991 Dangerous Dog Act! Frankly the only real difference is that the UK had 4 breeds listed as dangerous. Local government didn't brand the Dogo Argentino as dangerous, however the English did :/
JoeBama wrote:i get mauled by a pompek already.... i want them under the dangerous dogs act!!!!
JoeBama wrote:i wonder what guru dogs are saying about this....??? hmmm in the scheme of things i don't even think it would matter to them cause at their prices... insurances can be paid..
nemisis wrote:JoeBama wrote:i wonder what guru dogs are saying about this....??? hmmm in the scheme of things i don't even think it would matter to them cause at their prices... insurances can be paid..
They can't Breed those dogs anymore reguardless off the fact they can pay..
JoeBama wrote:nemisis wrote:JoeBama wrote:i wonder what guru dogs are saying about this....??? hmmm in the scheme of things i don't even think it would matter to them cause at their prices... insurances can be paid..
They can't Breed those dogs anymore reguardless off the fact they can pay..
they may not advertise any more but can't breed you say.. come on.. think about it.. really..... understand the group we're talkin bout.... its gonna happen on the low low... minister gonna get their $20g'z blue bully normel!!
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Habit7 and 64 guests