Did you know? Dogs have their own protection agency paid for by your tax dollars. It's commonly referred to as Animal Control (AC) but in practice it's more like DOG Protective Services (DPS). Even in jurisdictions that still have animal removal services, in practice it is toothless (unlike dogs).
Crazy what a large portion of humanity is doing rn; it's causing the extinction of many native species across the globe, while at the same time providing special protections for these run-of-the-mill, turd-munching and most abominable parasites that can be found everywhere people are; their numbers only multiply despite the plethora of problems they cause us.
At one time, a “kill shelter” was simply called “the pound,” and most shelters were “kill shelters” by default.
We need to bring back “dog catchers” and move away from this current insane model adopted by Animal Control Officers (ACOs) which aims to reunite lost craphounds with their nutter owners, provide medical care for the mutts, find dogs new homes etc.
The focus is no longer on public safety; dog nutters will claim that the “old” model of indiscriminately rounding up strays for euthanasia is somehow inferior to that of today, but the opposite is true. Basically, AC should be an apparatus in place to enforce the rules and laws nutters should be subject to -- and to and remove dangerous dogs from the streets. Unfortunately, it does no such thing.
There is way too much focus on AnImUw CwUeLtY! (which in practice means catering to dog nuts) and as a result dog attacks (and other issues caused by dogs) are at an all-time high.
I for one am sick of dog culture weaponizing """"""""""""""""""animal"""""""""""""""""" welfare and MuH dIsAbIliTy! to project the idea that dogs should be treated with kid gloves and essentially allowed to continue to not only exist but proliferate despite all the harm they cause, to be smuggled into more and more spaces where they should never be, and all the rest of it.
“A dog whipper was a church official responsible for removing hungry and barking dogs from churches and church grounds. This post was fairly common in England and continental Europe between the 16th and into the very early 19th centuries.”
“The Dog Whipper was armed with a three-foot-long whip and a pair of “dog tongs” (i.e. badger tongs) with which to remove dogs that barked or which would crowd or even attack priests handing out communion bread and wafers on church steps. Sometimes Dog Whippers also served as dog catchers for the community, with stray dogs commonly drowned.”
“All of this was back before rabies vaccines had brought that dreaded disease under control, and before fencing was common. Dog licenses? Invisible fence? There were no such things. Instead, there were ropes, chains, collars, cages, and whips -- the latter being the “remote trainer” of choice for 1,000 years, and still in use today with the mounted hound packs.”
Wanting no more dogs is not about cruelty to animals. It's about human welfare and public health as well as animal welfare (animals that are not dogs would benefit from their absence, as would we).
As we know - and as was recently pointed out - it used to be the case that a dog which drew blood was quickly put down. I wish society would realize collectively that dogs, as long as they're around us, will just keep biting because that's what TF they do. The track record shows that attacks by them don't ever stop, and many are fatal or life-altering.
Perhaps more than anything, I wish it wasn't controversial to say all of this. That it wasn't controversial to understand and explain that it'd be best for us to take a proactive approach and put them all down in advance (before they can bite anyone) until there are no more dog bites or maulings.
Dog worshippers will hate this 'cuz it means no more beasts for them to be nasty or vicious with, or to have as socially acceptable living teddy bears - and bc they don't care about people getting injured or inconvenienced by the existence of dogs.
But they'd be VERY hard-pressed to argue that there is any more effective solution to the slew of issues created by their existence, than NO MORE DOGS AROUND. In fact it'd be impossible for them to make such a case.
Further proof that dogs are WEAPONS which facilitate the use of EXCESSIVE FORCE. There's no sense of proportionality when a savage, highly trained shredding machine that's already a natural born killer is unleashed upon someone, especially when the dog's victim is usually restrained and their movement is incredibly restricted.
No police or military force should be allowed to use dogs in this fashion. It is claimed elsewhere that allowing a dog to continue biting a suspect after the person has been apprehended and is no longer resisting is considered excessive force, but just allowing one of these foul beasts to sink their rancid fangs into anyone is already excessive, and ridiculous.
These things do major damage to people when they start attacking with their fangs (many sources make it sound like they only "bite", but it's more akin to mauling, tearing, cutting and shredding; not that them biting is acceptable either).
I'm also sick of all the excuses like how this is supposedly to protect us from "bad people." No, bad people use dogs as weapons against others, and this isn't the only example, but it's a big one. No department, nor a division of DHS or whatever, needs to be allowed to use dogs as weapons. They already have weapons, and various tools at their disposal. This is beyond inhumane.
No matter how much you insist, a dog is NOT "like a wheelchair." A wheelchair is inanimate, does not have a prey drive and sharp teeth, doesn't smell, drool, slobber, shed, aggregate allergies, or use the bathroom.
These lunatics just can't wrap their feeble minds around the idea that you can't just bring anything you want into someone else's personal vehicle, or into various public locations where it's rude and inconsiderate and not to mention a health code violation.
This is why we sometimes call it the 'Assholes with Disabilities Act.'
You're starting to get on my last nerve, dog nutter [name redacted].
“Just wear earplugs, stupid” is dismissive and insensitive BS as it places the burden of managing a noise problem entirely on the person being disturbed, rather than addressing THE SOURCE of the noise or acknowledging the full complexity of the situation.
1) No, wearing earplugs or noise-cancelling headphones won't solve the problem of barking dogs, bc dogs will still bark and not everyone has or uses earplugs anyway.
2) No, bc barks often bark all throughout the day and you can't reasonably expect people to wear earplugs 24/7
3) It doesn't even drown out or fully muffle the sound of barking, you a--hat.
4) I'm also talking about barking in general and how menacing and abrasive and out of place it is, not just as a noise disturbance.
4a. Barking is also evidence of the domestic dog's mindless mutant aggression.
5) In essence, this shifts the responsibility and blames the victim, implying that the disturbed person's discomfort is a personal failing that can be easily fixed with a simple accessory, rather than a legitimate problem caused by someone else's inconsiderate behavior, or the actions of a worthless barkbag.
6) It ignores the source: It avoids asking the person making the noise to be more considerate (e.g., lower the volume, move elsewhere, use their own headphones, train their dog or not have one), thus enabling their disruptive behavior to continue.
7) It also overlooks practical and health concerns (some may not be able to use earplugs or headsets, or take allergy meds etc)
8) It minimizes the very real feelings of others, and disregards their right to comfort.
9) Saying this crap also invalidates needs: It sends a message that the disturbed person's need for quiet and peace is less important than the dog's inferior desire to make a completely pointless and needless fucking noise. And that is not acceptable.
Look, no one is “vilifying” dogs or dog owners. They ARE villains.
If you were to go around assaulting other people simply because you see them, what else would we call that? Anyone who goes around committing assault and battery and sometimes murder, invading others' personal space, disturbing the peace in neighborhoods, and using the bathroom outside all over sidewalks and greenspaces in residential areas is not a hero, that is for sure.
All of that and more is exactly what dogs do, and their owners know it yet they harbor these nasty, violent gremlins.
K-None Official
K-None Official
Did you know? Dogs have their own protection agency paid for by your tax dollars. It's commonly referred to as Animal Control (AC) but in practice it's more like DOG Protective Services (DPS). Even in jurisdictions that still have animal removal services, in practice it is toothless (unlike dogs).
Crazy what a large portion of humanity is doing rn; it's causing the extinction of many native species across the globe, while at the same time providing special protections for these run-of-the-mill, turd-munching and most abominable parasites that can be found everywhere people are; their numbers only multiply despite the plethora of problems they cause us.
1 hour ago | [YT] | 22
View 4 replies
K-None Official
At one time, a “kill shelter” was simply called “the pound,” and most shelters were “kill shelters” by default.
We need to bring back “dog catchers” and move away from this current insane model adopted by Animal Control Officers (ACOs) which aims to reunite lost craphounds with their nutter owners, provide medical care for the mutts, find dogs new homes etc.
The focus is no longer on public safety; dog nutters will claim that the “old” model of indiscriminately rounding up strays for euthanasia is somehow inferior to that of today, but the opposite is true. Basically, AC should be an apparatus in place to enforce the rules and laws nutters should be subject to -- and to and remove dangerous dogs from the streets. Unfortunately, it does no such thing.
There is way too much focus on AnImUw CwUeLtY! (which in practice means catering to dog nuts) and as a result dog attacks (and other issues caused by dogs) are at an all-time high.
I for one am sick of dog culture weaponizing """"""""""""""""""animal"""""""""""""""""" welfare and MuH dIsAbIliTy! to project the idea that dogs should be treated with kid gloves and essentially allowed to continue to not only exist but proliferate despite all the harm they cause, to be smuggled into more and more spaces where they should never be, and all the rest of it.
2 hours ago | [YT] | 9
View 2 replies
K-None Official
DID YOU KNOW? (Originally posted on FB)
“A dog whipper was a church official responsible for removing hungry and barking dogs from churches and church grounds. This post was fairly common in England and continental Europe between the 16th and into the very early 19th centuries.”
“The Dog Whipper was armed with a three-foot-long whip and a pair of “dog tongs” (i.e. badger tongs) with which to remove dogs that barked or which would crowd or even attack priests handing out communion bread and wafers on church steps. Sometimes Dog Whippers also served as dog catchers for the community, with stray dogs commonly drowned.”
“All of this was back before rabies vaccines had brought that dreaded disease under control, and before fencing was common. Dog licenses? Invisible fence? There were no such things. Instead, there were ropes, chains, collars, cages, and whips -- the latter being the “remote trainer” of choice for 1,000 years, and still in use today with the mounted hound packs.”
2 hours ago (edited) | [YT] | 15
View 8 replies
K-None Official
Wanting no more dogs is not about cruelty to animals. It's about human welfare and public health as well as animal welfare (animals that are not dogs would benefit from their absence, as would we).
As we know - and as was recently pointed out - it used to be the case that a dog which drew blood was quickly put down. I wish society would realize collectively that dogs, as long as they're around us, will just keep biting because that's what TF they do. The track record shows that attacks by them don't ever stop, and many are fatal or life-altering.
Perhaps more than anything, I wish it wasn't controversial to say all of this. That it wasn't controversial to understand and explain that it'd be best for us to take a proactive approach and put them all down in advance (before they can bite anyone) until there are no more dog bites or maulings.
Dog worshippers will hate this 'cuz it means no more beasts for them to be nasty or vicious with, or to have as socially acceptable living teddy bears - and bc they don't care about people getting injured or inconvenienced by the existence of dogs.
But they'd be VERY hard-pressed to argue that there is any more effective solution to the slew of issues created by their existence, than NO MORE DOGS AROUND. In fact it'd be impossible for them to make such a case.
3 days ago (edited) | [YT] | 85
View 23 replies
K-None Official
This was previously covered, but this really was a disturbing case. So enraging, what dog owners inflict on others. Sometimes, their own family.
6 days ago | [YT] | 57
View 13 replies
K-None Official
Further proof that dogs are WEAPONS which facilitate the use of EXCESSIVE FORCE. There's no sense of proportionality when a savage, highly trained shredding machine that's already a natural born killer is unleashed upon someone, especially when the dog's victim is usually restrained and their movement is incredibly restricted.
No police or military force should be allowed to use dogs in this fashion. It is claimed elsewhere that allowing a dog to continue biting a suspect after the person has been apprehended and is no longer resisting is considered excessive force, but just allowing one of these foul beasts to sink their rancid fangs into anyone is already excessive, and ridiculous.
These things do major damage to people when they start attacking with their fangs (many sources make it sound like they only "bite", but it's more akin to mauling, tearing, cutting and shredding; not that them biting is acceptable either).
I'm also sick of all the excuses like how this is supposedly to protect us from "bad people." No, bad people use dogs as weapons against others, and this isn't the only example, but it's a big one. No department, nor a division of DHS or whatever, needs to be allowed to use dogs as weapons. They already have weapons, and various tools at their disposal. This is beyond inhumane.
Share by @Valentina-qb1vq
6 days ago (edited) | [YT] | 17
View 2 replies
K-None Official
No matter how much you insist, a dog is NOT "like a wheelchair." A wheelchair is inanimate, does not have a prey drive and sharp teeth, doesn't smell, drool, slobber, shed, aggregate allergies, or use the bathroom.
These lunatics just can't wrap their feeble minds around the idea that you can't just bring anything you want into someone else's personal vehicle, or into various public locations where it's rude and inconsiderate and not to mention a health code violation.
This is why we sometimes call it the 'Assholes with Disabilities Act.'
6 days ago (edited) | [YT] | 18
View 2 replies
K-None Official
You're starting to get on my last nerve, dog nutter [name redacted].
“Just wear earplugs, stupid” is dismissive and insensitive BS as it places the burden of managing a noise problem entirely on the person being disturbed, rather than addressing THE SOURCE of the noise or acknowledging the full complexity of the situation.
1) No, wearing earplugs or noise-cancelling headphones won't solve the problem of barking dogs, bc dogs will still bark and not everyone has or uses earplugs anyway.
2) No, bc barks often bark all throughout the day and you can't reasonably expect people to wear earplugs 24/7
3) It doesn't even drown out or fully muffle the sound of barking, you a--hat.
4) I'm also talking about barking in general and how menacing and abrasive and out of place it is, not just as a noise disturbance.
4a. Barking is also evidence of the domestic dog's mindless mutant aggression.
5) In essence, this shifts the responsibility and blames the victim, implying that the disturbed person's discomfort is a personal failing that can be easily fixed with a simple accessory, rather than a legitimate problem caused by someone else's inconsiderate behavior, or the actions of a worthless barkbag.
6) It ignores the source: It avoids asking the person making the noise to be more considerate (e.g., lower the volume, move elsewhere, use their own headphones, train their dog or not have one), thus enabling their disruptive behavior to continue.
7) It also overlooks practical and health concerns (some may not be able to use earplugs or headsets, or take allergy meds etc)
8) It minimizes the very real feelings of others, and disregards their right to comfort.
9) Saying this crap also invalidates needs: It sends a message that the disturbed person's need for quiet and peace is less important than the dog's inferior desire to make a completely pointless and needless fucking noise. And that is not acceptable.
1 week ago (edited) | [YT] | 58
View 40 replies
K-None Official
Look, no one is “vilifying” dogs or dog owners. They ARE villains.
If you were to go around assaulting other people simply because you see them, what else would we call that? Anyone who goes around committing assault and battery and sometimes murder, invading others' personal space, disturbing the peace in neighborhoods, and using the bathroom outside all over sidewalks and greenspaces in residential areas is not a hero, that is for sure.
All of that and more is exactly what dogs do, and their owners know it yet they harbor these nasty, violent gremlins.
1 week ago (edited) | [YT] | 58
View 19 replies
K-None Official
When will this stop?
(Clip shared by @amanja0308)
1 week ago (edited) | [YT] | 23
View 10 replies
Load more