Thursday, September 10, 2009

Can You Use "Responsible" to Describe a Pit Owner?

My opinion is no. How does one call themselves responsible when they know how many attacks pits are doing these days? How does one call themselves responsible when they fight the very thing, BSL, that might make them responsible? It is beyond me how these pit nutters live with themselves, constantly trying to adopt out pits under the guise of the "nanny" dogs.

What does it take to make these fools realize that pits are not the same breed they were a hundred years ago, an excuse they always use. It seems to me that even then the dogs were bred to kill and I bet the pit nutters are just as old as the breed with their lies and excuses. Of course, you will tell people what great dogs they are if you want to keep them for financial gain like fighting. I bet that no time in history were they "nanny" dogs, just another misconception sold to the public by dog fighters even then.

It is disgusting how the comments on news stories lay the blame on the victims. Not once have I seen a pit owner comment that they accept what their dog was bred to do and have taken steps to make sure their pit is appropriately restrained. Not once have I seen a pit owner/commenter admit that they are aware of the breeding of their pit and what it means to others. They always speak in term of abuse and neglect. Duh, this is the best reason for BSL, trying to prevent bad owners from this abuse and neglect. These nutters always look for an excuse for the attacking pit, never words of condolence for the victims.

I would hate to see these pit nutters as members of a jury. They can't see the truth in front of their noses. They see the pit as the victim. I think that anyone who is a pit owner should never be selected to serve on a jury because they have such disregard for human life.

Pit nutters must be extremely gullible and so I suggest to all those scam artists pick on the pit nutters. They believe anything it seems. Course this already happens, look at the scam of "No Kill". It realized early on that the nutters mean money and therefore the pits get a "bad rap" nonsense has fulfilled that. And the NCRC is no different with the flawed reporting and the lack of raw data. All are designed to appeal to the pit nutters lack of common sense and their pocketbooks.

What these nutters don't realize or refuse to realize is that they are being used. Used to promote the myth of pits being pets. Used to promote the gambling associated with fighting. Used to promote stupid books. Used to make others money, period.

Then there are the pit nutters who have the "Savior complex". They want to save them all. If it weren't the pits, it would be something else. They have an obsession and rather than seek treatment, they continue to take the pits out of shelters and adopt them to unsuspecting families. Rather than putting their money, time, and efforts into reducing the pit population, they choose instead to "save them all". You wouldn't have to save them if they ain't there in the first place. They know the pits fill the shelters, another reason to have BSL, as a means to reduce the pit population.

Responsibility is a word that should never be used to describe a pit owner. Stupid, perverted, egotistical, dumb are the more appropriate words. Let me know if you can think of others.


scurrilous amateur blogger said...

the number is so small, it is statistically insignificant.

Melissa said...

I don't think they are very many responsible owners of any breed of dog. If you let your Chihuahua roam the streets though, no one is going to get hurt.

HonestyHelps said...

You have a point Melissa, not enough good owners. No Kill is willing to forego "good owners". The Whino just wrote a lenghty post about how we just need to push them out the door on anyone who happens to be walking close enough by. I say we need to do better adoptions not more adoptions. It doesn't help anyone to set up the pet and the family for failure just to get them out the door. I have said all along that "No Kill" really doesn't care, any home is better than euthanization. I say there are worst things that can happen to a pet than euthanization.

Anonymous said...

I wanted to just get in here that the word "responsible" is one of the most commonly used code terms for BREEDER.

They use the word "responsible" to hide breeder financial interests, like when they create groups with the word "responsible" in them.

AKC has business and anti-legislation lobbying days they call "responsible dog owner days." A fake out.

"Responsible dog owners" groups and the like that represent pit bull breeders, and according to the dog fighters, THEM.

It's a way that breeders try to dupe the legislators and the media and try to hide the fact that the only reason they support or oppose anything is how it will affect their income. And hiding the fact that they ARE breeders.

What "responsible" means to these people is- no laws needed, let the breeders alone to keep raking in the tax-free cash with no regulation or laws!

Sharlene LovesAPBT said...

I agree fully, overpopulation anywhere, any breed is plain heartbreaking. I also believe that most dogs that end up in the pound is there for a reason, the owner is just to cheap or uncaring to put it to sleep. So why do you think the lawmakers only give a ten dollar a year break on dog/cat licenses? I would pay a hell of a lot more per year to the city so there could be more enforcement, then there would be more jobs in all animal fields. With more enforcement there would be less shelters needed, rescue groups would be shut down, mandatory fixing of animals could be implemented and policed and puppy mills / back yard breeder would be a thing of the past. With that, breeders that give a damn would be able to sell quality animals to people who actually have the money and means to care for a pet appropriately. But there are those people that fall back on the whole, "I should be able to do whatever the hell I want we live in a free society." I say that is nonsense, not when it ends up costing society millions upon millions. Ahh shit I went on a tangent, Yes I agree pit bulls are overpopulated. No kill is a unreachable goal that creates suffering, rescue is a crap shoot and dangerous (with a few happy stories). Mass euthanasia is probably the only solution to this mess if the law makers are not going to take a sensible approach.

HonestyHelps said...

When you consider that pit euthanization is about 58% average for most shelters then you have to think in these terms. It's not because of uncaring owners many times, it is because of the dog itself. I've been dealing with shelters for decades and it is different with pits. They are there because of what they do, their aggression, their blood lust. Other breeds are there because of their owners. There is a difference.

Rescues, all rescues, should be regulated. Many are nothing more than hoarders. Shelters are so pushed by these Whinonettes and the "No Kill" movement that they are shoving them out the door to these rescues. Otherwise the shelters know the Whinonettes wrath. "No Kill" is causing all of this mess. And people will pay the price with their lives because of the pit bull issue.