King Tooti
Very sad story in Portland. What can be done about this growing pit bull problem where we cant even take our dogs out for a walk anymore??
POSTED: 8:11 am PST February 18, 2007
UPDATED: 4:25 pm PST February 18, 2007
A Portland woman said a wayward pit bull is to blame for the death of her dog.
Ursula Foxâs Schit-Tzu, named Decaf, was killed Friday night on Northeast 47th Street. Fox said she was walking Decaf around 9 p.m. when several dogs came running up behind her with a man yelling at them.
âAll of a sudden, I went to pick her up and these dogs got her right here on the ground,â said Fox.
Fox claimed a pit bull tackled Decaf to the ground and snapped her neck, killing the small dog instantly.
âHe ran down and said, âOh noâ and he tried to stop his dog and I started screaming and he says, 'Oh, Iâm so sorry,' and that was it,â said Fox.
Fox called police, but said the pit bullâs owner was never cited and the dog was not taken away.
FOX 12 t
sorry: rest of article
FOX 12 tried to talk with the owner of the pit bulls, but there was no answer at the door.
Portland law states all dogs must be on a leash and under their ownersâ control while outside of their own yards.
The law also stated owners are liable for any damage caused by their dog; and an off-leash dog that kills another pet is to be considered a dangerous dog.
The Fox family said they planned to contact animal control Tuesday morning.
http://www.kptv.com/news/11047700/detail.html
Answer
This has nothing to do with pit bulls, but about unleashed and badly behaved dogs. I believe owners should be more responsible, and owners of dogs prone to violence even more careful than that, but I don't believe that this happened because of a pit bull, but rather because of a badly mannered badly educated and extremely ignorant pitbull owner.
Yes, some breeds have been bred to fight, or guard or things like that. But the upbringing, not the breeding, is the main problem here. Ignorant people who want a tough dog buy pitbulls, not people who know how to handle and properly train dogs. That is not to say there are no good pitbull owners out there, but rather that they are not the majority. People get dogs for the wrong reasons, are unable to control them, and then don't even properly restrain them.
I'm not denying that pitbulls have the potential to kill. They're powerful dogs and maybe they have a predator instinct somewhere in their gene pool. But if the owner had the dog properly trained and leashed, would this have heppened? I think we need to exterminate the bad pitbull owners, rather than the unfortunate dogs forced to live in these homes.
Red cars have higher insurance costs because these cars are proportionately likely to get into more crashes a year. This is not because red cars are less safe to drive (they are as safe as any other color of the same make and model), but that the drivers who pick them tend to drive less safely. Getting rid of pitbulls is as absurd as saying that companies should be outlawed from producing red vehicles. If this happened, the same dangerous "drivers" would be just as dangerous with another car (or dog).
I have met some very well mannered pit bulls, as well as some incredibly evil ones. Please, don't judge a breed by one dog who got on the front page of the news.
This has nothing to do with pit bulls, but about unleashed and badly behaved dogs. I believe owners should be more responsible, and owners of dogs prone to violence even more careful than that, but I don't believe that this happened because of a pit bull, but rather because of a badly mannered badly educated and extremely ignorant pitbull owner.
Yes, some breeds have been bred to fight, or guard or things like that. But the upbringing, not the breeding, is the main problem here. Ignorant people who want a tough dog buy pitbulls, not people who know how to handle and properly train dogs. That is not to say there are no good pitbull owners out there, but rather that they are not the majority. People get dogs for the wrong reasons, are unable to control them, and then don't even properly restrain them.
I'm not denying that pitbulls have the potential to kill. They're powerful dogs and maybe they have a predator instinct somewhere in their gene pool. But if the owner had the dog properly trained and leashed, would this have heppened? I think we need to exterminate the bad pitbull owners, rather than the unfortunate dogs forced to live in these homes.
Red cars have higher insurance costs because these cars are proportionately likely to get into more crashes a year. This is not because red cars are less safe to drive (they are as safe as any other color of the same make and model), but that the drivers who pick them tend to drive less safely. Getting rid of pitbulls is as absurd as saying that companies should be outlawed from producing red vehicles. If this happened, the same dangerous "drivers" would be just as dangerous with another car (or dog).
I have met some very well mannered pit bulls, as well as some incredibly evil ones. Please, don't judge a breed by one dog who got on the front page of the news.
Why does the average liberal's ideology not make too much sense?
Give Me Li
Liberals will actually take the time to block Fox News from their cable or satellite channels. Why? Is an opposing view so offensive that it must be shunned even at the cost of more choice? Why wouldnât a liberal want to know what the other point of view is? How can you learn and grow if you refuse to allow your points of view to be challenged?
Liberals will tell you Wallstreet is ruining America. Then quote Wallstreet elite when they are trying to convince you the stimulous is working. A liberal regime will hire Wallstreet elite to control the treasury. Wallstreet and government are so intertwined it is difficult to untangle the mess they have made. If âChange you can believe inâ¦â meant more Wallstreet control of government â Obama kept that promise. If Wallstreet is ruining America, why would a liberal government integrate them further into positions of vast power?
Do liberals really want an improved standard of living for all Americans? The answer here can only be: âNoâ. Any rational look at the wealth of nations and standards of living will clearly demonstrate less government builds wealth for all. Liberals should be clear â they want equality over actual quality. Yes, we can all live a somewhat economically equal existance, but it will be a low standard. The upper middle class in the Soviet Union was allowed a 2 bedroom apartment and public transportation. The lower middle class in America has 3 bedrooms and 2 cars! Yes, the super rich would live a lifestyle far in excess of the lowest rungs. However, even the lowest rungs will have food, shelter, and most importantly: the opportunity to succeed.
Liberals seem to spit in the face of logic when it comes to results. Obama set expectations for what the stimulous would do and not do. Unemployment was not supposed to go over 8% if we approved the stimulous. Unemployment has exceeded 8% even using the ridiculously understated US Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers. Most economists examing the data are arriving at figures 50% higher. So what is the logical solution? Itâs obvious to rational people that the stimulous did not deliver as promised, try the opposite â give the money back to the people. For liberals, the answer is âmore of the sameâ.
Liberals claim to value science. This might be news to liberals, but science and science fiction are two different things. Science is a rigorous system of observation, testing, data analysis, and finally a conclusion. How would that system apply to government? Easy â reduce federal power. Allow the states to test theories of government within their borders. Winners and losers will quickly stand out. Testing aggressive government programs by forcing the entire nation to adopt them is insanity, not science. Dispite the massive consolidation of power, we do have some examples among the states that stand out. Oregon has the highest unemployment in the nation â so should we copy what they are doing? Liberals say âYes!â Oregon has the highest minimum wage, the federal government is going to force that wage on all of the states. If liberals have decided to use science to destroy America, they are on the right track. Recklessly experimenting on the entire population is a recipe for disaster. Choosing the worst examples and emulating their programs nationwide seems to indicate a desire to create negative results.
Why do liberals think this way?
Note to republicans: Donât consider this post an endorsement. After all, it was you idiots that screwed things up so bad that America thought voting in liberals was a rational idea.
@Durango: I am a complete libertarian... so calling this post "conservative propaganda" makes you seem very foolish.
Answer
1. Fox news is like coke claiming to be healthy and quenches your thirst.
2. WallStreet was responsible for the crash hence they are ruining AMerica! They help created futures and other trading schemes that do not help normal Americans.
3. Liberals will try to help everyone increase the standard of living to a certain extent. Now just the wealthy pay one of the lowest tax rates since the Eisenhower era perhaps they should tax ed like the middle class.
4. Historically spending is what takes a country out of a recession. Obama had too much hope but and could not comprehend the extent of Bush's recession. ( imagine that you are only looking at the tip of the iceberge.
5. Speaking of science why are you talking about Oregon? Why would a worldwide recession not affect Oregon? You can reduce government anytime during the Boom years .
1. Fox news is like coke claiming to be healthy and quenches your thirst.
2. WallStreet was responsible for the crash hence they are ruining AMerica! They help created futures and other trading schemes that do not help normal Americans.
3. Liberals will try to help everyone increase the standard of living to a certain extent. Now just the wealthy pay one of the lowest tax rates since the Eisenhower era perhaps they should tax ed like the middle class.
4. Historically spending is what takes a country out of a recession. Obama had too much hope but and could not comprehend the extent of Bush's recession. ( imagine that you are only looking at the tip of the iceberge.
5. Speaking of science why are you talking about Oregon? Why would a worldwide recession not affect Oregon? You can reduce government anytime during the Boom years .
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment