• li10@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    7 months ago

    If my dogs ever tried to kill me, I’d just pin them both down. That’s the benefit of not having insanely powerful dogs.

    IMO you shouldn’t have a dog that you can’t physically restrain. Any dog can snap and you need to be able to physically stop them if that happens.

      • Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I agree in the sense that some dog breeds aren’t necessary and are actively unhealthy for the animal and the breed should be allowed to die out removing the ability for people to be owners of those breeds, and therefore ownerless

        • morphballganon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          7 months ago

          They said only own dogs you can overpower. That means nobody gets a St. Bernard. I don’t think St. Bernard is a breed that should die out.

        • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          7 months ago

          This seems nuts. Is this not an insane opinion? You want entire dog breeds to go extinct? What are your thoughts on that one governor lady? lol

          • Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes? I am not sure I understand what is making you upset. I am not saying kill all the pitbulls, I am saying stop dog eugenics and let dogs just be dogs and love the animal that comes out. If that means that we stop having access to purebred (inbred) Pugs, so be it. Mutts are just as good doggos.

            • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Idk why you think I’m upset. I’m more shocked than anything.

              I would think most people tend to support conservation of different animals and whatnot, except for maybe mosquitoes (and even then I’d be hesitant). It’s also blowing my mind that you’re heavily upvoted. I had no idea some of y’all thought this way.

              That said, I’m just going to assume I don’t fully understand what you’re saying since it seems so batshit crazy to me. It’s clear this isn’t really an honest, open dialogue anyway, and that’s totally fine

              • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                7 months ago

                Not the OP, but let me step in. Dog breeds are something we have created as humans, they’re not wild species that need to be preserved and don’t have any effect on ecosystems.

                Dog breeding is largely negative at this point as most breeds have outlived their original use and are now seen as designer pets. We continue to breed them as there is continued demand, but quite often these breeds are so inbred that they have genetic health issues. We also oversupply and don’t fix/neuter enough, meaning there are always unwanted dogs without homes.

                I love dogs, but all of mine have been rescues and I would have no problem with the vast majority of breeds being phased out. There are still some niche cases where dogs are actually used for their breed’s purpose (dog sled, search/rescue, hunting, etc) but no, I don’t think a chihuahua or a pug should exist and would not be sad if breeders stopped producing more.

                • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Thanks for sharing your POV. It’s definitely the first time I’ve heard something that radical about dogs, which are basically the most beloved living thing in the US, but I can somewhat understand where you’re coming from.

                  I’d definitely support making it more difficult to own a dog, but mostly because many of the dog owners I’ve met are borderline abusive to their pets (I’m mainly thinking of neglect here). I don’t think I could ever support a ban on entire breeds. That’s where it starts to seem crazy to me. Make it a felony to own a dog that bites someone or something but don’t make it a felony to simply own the dog. We don’t even have such laws for people that own guns or swords and surely those lead to more deaths/injuries than dogs.

                  • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I feel I should clarify that I don’t hold this position because dogs are dangerous or think it should be harder to have a dog. I hold it because I think our breeding programs are creating a lot of animal suffering.

                    From puppy mills where dogs are kept in horrible conditions, to overproduction of animals so that there aren’t enough homes, to propagating breeds that can barely breath so that they have an “adorable” face. Dog breeding is exploitative and re-enforces that dogs are simply a commodity.

                    I’m not sure a law making it more difficult to own a dog would have the effect you intend, as there are already too many dogs in need of homes. I think a more palatable middle ground to elimination would be regulation of breeders to ensure that they are not producing more dogs than can be homed.

      • littlewonder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        There’s a difference between that and policies that discourage breeding, etc.

        I don’t see many people advocating to outright kill dogs. There are a ton of pits in every shelter and yet people still run backyard breeding operations or tell everyone to get a pit. The breed would be better served if we told people they were more of an advanced breed that need the right kind of owners and environment.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I noticed my guinea pigs have never tried to murder me. Granted in a home invasion they are pretty useless. Unless I like throw their squeaky bodies at said invader or overpower him and make him drink from the water dish as vengeance.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        They should require a license to own and a reason to be bred

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            7 months ago

            I bet more cows are killed in a year than all shelter dogs on earth.

            So, for most folks, the “no death” argument is silly

                • morphballganon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Cow farms supply food for humans. I’m not saying that’s the most ethical thing in the world, but it is done. Would dogs serve the same purpose? They would produce less, lower quality meat per head.

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                7 months ago

                Dogs aren’t put down for their meat, so the discussion of the acceptability of putting dogs down is not based on their meat.

                Thus, the point is about humans simply killing animals.

                This isn’t about the human imposed utility, it’s about if it’s fine for humans to decide what animals live and die. Humans don’t need beef to live, there are other foods, so humans make a human centric choice to kill cows.

                Since humans are deciding what animals.live, based purely on human wants, why would dogs be free of that assessment?

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      91
      ·
      7 months ago

      Any dog can snap

      any animal can snap.

      I guess you don’t think people should have st. bernards or great danes? I mean, I’m not suggesting people keep wolves or lions as pets, but this bully dog fearmongering is out of control. IMHO, it’s not the breed, it’s the training and owner.

      • theareciboincident@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        73
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        7 months ago

        breed is literally bred to increase aggression over hundreds of generations

        nooo they just look scary they’re so cuddly noooo you don’t understand

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          69
          ·
          7 months ago

          breed is literally bred to increase aggression over hundreds of generations

          absolute bullshit, unless they’re being bred by chuds for dogfights (despicable) this is not a thing

              • yamanii@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                They are being human, they want to protect their fellow humans from a violent dog breed that is disproportionately responsible for owner and family deaths.

      • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death, then that just proves the point of the breed being dangerous and that it should be outlawed. But please, continue to make some more bullshit excuses.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death,

          where is this indicated?

          My brother/sister in dogs: 30,000ish years ago, some fucking wolf/dingo/mongrel-mutt threw their lot in with ours. We have, mutually, benefitted enormously. I love dogs and trust a lot more of them than I do humans to do the right thing. This isn’t developed anecdotally, it’s a lifetime of dogs as part of our family, and operating around working dogs in the military. They deserve our respect, and training is one part of any dog’s life that humans need to learn. Most training isn’t for the dog, it’s for the family members.

          I’d recommend anyone with any dog go through training, whether a specific program or simply to acclimate the animal to your house (where and when we go outside and who’s food is who’s etc.,) but also to train them to react and behave in awkward situations. I’ve had toddlers lurch across the room, grab my dog’s faces and and poke at their eyes - and the toddlers got licked.

          Special training? YOU SHOULD TRAIN YOUR ANIMALS PERIOD. you wouldn’t trust a cat to behave around a toddler, a dog, a parrot (nearly lost a finger meeting a white parrot once!), hells man/ma’am…

          apply some sense to it all.

          • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            where is this indicated?

            In the fact that this keeps on happening even with experienced owners.

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              it’s putting words into my mouth, I never indicated any such thing.

              want to make a point? don’t use me as your sock puppet to do it, be adult enough to make your own assertions sport.

              • h3h3productions@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                My brother in buddy, they weren’t putting words in your mouth. They were using outside factors to answer a question you made.

                Want to talk down to someone? How about doing it to someone without having to make erroneous assumptions and jumping the defensive gun? Be adult enough to not belittle people like this chief.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      109
      ·
      7 months ago

      Any dog can snap

      Dishonest statement. That’s like saying “Any ceiling fan can decapitate you”. Technically true, but so extraordinarily unlikely for most breeds that you should be more worried about car crashes if you fear for your life…