|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
05-10-2009, 01:20 PM
Originally Posted by lozzibear 
i said...
so you replied with...
i was talking about Staffs in 2007, that was the point i was making (not APBTs!). Staffs arent illegal so the authorities have no grounds to take them and PTS, so i doubt, if they did that 2 years ago, they would have done that with APBTs when the law was introduced.
so thats why i asked...
coz thats what you were making it sound, after i was talking about 2007. that is was ok for THEM to be seized since they are illegal, which they arent. just how it sounded to me
Sorry, but you have still lost me, nowhere did I state Staffies are either banned or its was OK to be siezed.
And I obviously missed your reference to the Staffie in your thread,,, which is not (by the way) what I responded too,
This thread seems to be taking on another life, one of misinterpreting others posts??
|
|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
05-10-2009, 01:44 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
Sorry, but you have still lost me, nowhere did I state Staffies are either banned or its was OK to be siezed.
And I obviously missed your reference to the Staffie in your thread,,, which is not (by the way) what I responded too,
This thread seems to be taking on another life, one of misinterpreting others posts??
Originally Posted by lozzibear
i dont know much about what happened here, in the UK (im not old enough too), but in america many APBTs are just getting taken off their owners and PTS. considering what happened with Staffs in merseyside, i doubt the UK let all dogs live out their life.
|
|
|
|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
05-10-2009, 01:48 PM
Originally Posted by CheekyChihuahua
Look, like I said, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks of Chihuahuas. I know the breed, so I don't need anyone else telling me about Chihuahuas.
For the last time, I'm saying, discussing Chis on a "dangerous dogs" thread is just ridiculous!
I haven't put words in anybodys mouth, if that's what you are trying to say.
The reason that APBTs have been the main breed of this discussion is because they are classed as a "dangerous dog" as set out in the Dangerous Dog Act (just for the record, I strongly disagree with this).
I just don't see the relevance of bringing the smallest of toy dogs into this discussion but if you think it's relevant then have a ball. I was just voicing my opinion, that's all.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
05-10-2009, 01:58 PM
if you arent talking about human aggression, then in what way are they a time bomb??
i dont know much about what happened here, in the UK (im not old enough too), but in america many APBTs are just getting taken off their owners and PTS. considering what happened with Staffs in merseyside, i doubt the UK let all dogs live out their life.
so why cant we use that excuse then?? its true, it is the owners not the breed
Today is different we are talking about a breed that is ILEGAL, and as such will be siezed.
Picking up on you stating that dogs would not be allowed to live out their lives.
Originally Posted by lozzibear
its not my fault if im misinterpreting your posts when you respond how you do!
there is my reference to Staffs!! what am i supposed to think when you responded how you did?? i dont have ESP to know you missed that reference when it is right there!
So to clarify the matter, your mention of Staffies was not what I responded too.
So to reiterate, where did I say they were banned!!
When quoting other post, take the time to look what they have highlighted and responded too, , it will help you not to misinterpret or pick up on the wrong response in the future.
|
|
|
|
Location: n/a
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,459
|
05-10-2009, 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by lozzibear
but thats the point, others on here also disagree about the Dangerous Dogs Act. so we are just trying to highlight the fact, that people can be wary of any dog, no matter how small they are. no dog should be seen as more dangerous than another.
There are enough breeds that are being dissed because of the lunacy of the media, without dog lovers joining in and dissing breeds that quite honestly, it's ridiculous to categorise as dangerous
I do get what you are saying Lozzi but I think it was not good to start naming breeds such as Chis/Poms on a dangerous dogs thread. That's all I was saying. I certainly have no personal feud with you or anyone else on this Forum, so please don't listen to the rantings of JB
|
|
|
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 105
|
05-10-2009, 02:02 PM
|
|
|
Location: Red Deer, AB, Canada
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,817
|
05-10-2009, 02:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: n/a
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,459
|
05-10-2009, 02:24 PM
Originally Posted by Sara'n'Scout
This whole scrap got a bit rediculous, I'm sorry I started the bit about the Chi's, honestly, I was only trying to point out that I am less wary of a dog on your DDA, than I am of a Chi, who is NOT a dangerous dog. My mother is terrified of JRT's but will snuggle a Pit Bull... My sis has been bitten by a Pug, Border Collie and a Lab, but never a Pit Bull... See what I'm saying? I NEVER said that Chi's were a dangerous dog, and I was only using the Chi as an example. It was not meant to get people riled up about Chi's being used on a dangerous dog thread.... It's amazing what a little comment will do....
I think the whole thing got blown up because somebody just decided to put their oar in and stir up trouble. I was only pointing out that Chis weren't dangerous as such and I understand what you were trying to say
|
|
|
|
Location: Red Deer, AB, Canada
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,817
|
05-10-2009, 02:27 PM
Originally Posted by CheekyChihuahua
I understand
I think the whole thing got blown up because somebody just decided to put their oar in and stir up trouble. I was only pointing out that Chis weren't dangerous as such and I understand what you were trying to say
|
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|