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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So huge dogs should just remain ownerless?
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
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.
My St. Bernard, Rosie, would agree. She’s such a big scaredy cat.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They should require a license to own and a reason to be bred
They should be put down.
Send 'em to God.
You are condoning killing dogs simply in response to their size?
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
Cows are killed for meat. Are you suggesting we should kill dogs for their meat?
Yes they were clearly suggesting that. Any honest reading would have arrived at that conclusion.
What is the difference between a cow and a dog that killing either is okay?
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.
Oh, from an efficiency standpoint.
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?