Punish the deed, Not the breed - Page 3 - Paw Talk - Pet Forums
Animal Welfare & Legal Issues Post articles, news alerts, and anything else pertaining to animal welfare. Legal issues and obligations regarding our pets such as renter's rights/responsibilities, vaccination laws, animal bans, etc. are also appropriate.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-23-2010, 04:37 PM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroyah View Post
i have trained a lot of former fighting pits and usually they are not people aggressive they are dog aggressive.
That is one of the MAJOR problems with BSL. People who propose BSL do NOT look at the different types of aggression, but lump them all into the same group. That's not only incorrect to do, but unfair as well.

You are absolutely right, a lot of dogs (of any breed) bred for fighting tend to be dog aggressive, or animal aggressive, but that does NOT equate to people aggression. Some dogs are food aggressive, but that does NOT equate to human aggression. Sometimes herding instincts CAN become aggressive. I have read/heard herding instincts are a modified hunting instinct, thus a form of "aggression". But hunting aggression still is not the same as human aggression. And on and on.

Unfortunately many people do not care to understand this. A dog was bred for dog fighting or bull baiting, that MUST mean it is people aggressive... But a dog bred to hunt and bring down lions... not a danger to society. A dog bred to hunt and bring down wild boar... also not a danger to society. It is a double standard!
Sorraia is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-27-2010, 08:50 AM
Part of the Pack
 
destroyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: silver spring, md almost dc
Age: 36
Posts: 383
 
here's another random question. who's bsl bothers you the most?

thunder, Thunder, THUNDERRATS HOOOOOO~!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
destroyah is offline  
post #33 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-27-2010, 10:20 AM
Part of the Pack
 
destroyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: silver spring, md almost dc
Age: 36
Posts: 383
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zylca View Post
I absolutly agree that education will be the key.
i wonder why places don't require dog training/obedience training as part of owning dogs? or at least "dangerous dogs"? wouldn't that be better than breeding them out of existence?

thunder, Thunder, THUNDERRATS HOOOOOO~!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
destroyah is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-27-2010, 12:36 PM
Part of the Pack
 
Zylca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 374
 
Well, It probably comes down to the financial resources of the community. State and city money is needed everywhere and I don't think that dogs are on the priority lists. I would rather my tax dollars go into education programs for all types of dogs in my area over breed ban enforcement.

How do you enforce taking an obedience course for a dog owner? Is it added to the back of my DL along with being a organ donor? Do I pay to sticker my dog like I do for vehicle registration? If my lil'buddy gets a canine good citizen certificate can I get a rebate from my city or state? How about a sizable discount on my personal liability policy?

Attending a class to meet a requirements doesn't mean that the owner will not make mistakes that allow for tragic stuff to happen. Accidents will happen. Someone has to want to better themselves as a pet's guardian to further reduce the risks that come with owning an animal that is capable of injury to another. Noah is a 120lb marshmallow in my arms but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of doing harm. He just has no reason to utilize his warrior skill set on anything. but uh.. if we meet a bad guy somewhere I hope he has one.

There is a recent event in Houston where a mother left a young child in a swing and the dog got in from an unsecured door and killed the baby. Could it have been avoided? Many say that it could have been. Should the parents be punished further or is the loss of the child enough? Was is fair for one media report to say that it was done by a mutant 150lb rottweiler?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Zylca is offline  
post #35 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-27-2010, 12:47 PM
Part of the Pack
 
Zylca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 374
 
Update on the houston incident with a link to the NCRC.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogbl...og-attack.html

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/in-your-state/


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Zylca; 12-27-2010 at 12:52 PM.
Zylca is offline  
post #36 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-27-2010, 09:20 PM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Some sort of training class requirement would be nice. How it would be managed is the bigger question. In my opinion, if something like this were to be implemented, it should be done so through the local animal control office, much the way pet licensing is done. Dog and owner attend pet training class, dog passes class and gets certificate from trainer, takes certificate to animal control office and gets a tag showing "proof of training", in addition to the "proof of license" or "proof of rabies vaccine" tag(s).

Would this work? Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on how it is implemented, and ultimately on the owner. No amount of training is going to "fix" a negligent owner, no matter what kind of dog they have. At the same time, "good" owners will have no opposition to getting their dog properly trained, and in fact may have planned it regardless whether it was a requirement or not.


That article about the child killed by a "rottweiler" proves that people do not know how to identify dogs... according to that link, different reports reported different breed and breed combinations, anything from rottweiler to pit bull to chow - dogs that all look VERY different and are of different sizes. If the dog really weighed 150 pounds... pit bull was NOT its dominant breed (the "pit bull" breeds generally weight 40-70 pounds depending on the exact breed in question and whether it was male or female), and yet that is still mentioned. Once again proof of the media bias - if the dog bites, it is automatically labeled a pit bull.
Sorraia is offline  
post #37 of 47 (permalink) Old 01-03-2011, 08:45 PM
Betta Bomb
 
Purple-Hops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: SJ Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 31
Posts: 5,202
Blog Entries: 5
  
Unfortunately, in the media the stories that sell and get the papers read are ones with vicious, mutant pit bulls so that well-to-do stable families can read it over the morning paper in their perfect suburban home after its delivered by the local paperboy on bike before school and toot and talk over their steaming hot coffee and croissants. The media will always exaggerate the problem in order to make deadlines and sell stories. . and this involves innocent babies being killed by giant demonoid dogs.
Purple-Hops is offline  
post #38 of 47 (permalink) Old 01-13-2011, 02:10 AM
laugh often
 
Mousey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: TX
Posts: 1,690
 
I have a retired service dog for my seizures. I am also currently training my second one.

My first one Harley was a mixed breed that happened to find his way to me. Two of the three breeds that made him are labeled "aggressive breeds". The pit bull and wolf hybrids. He was abused before I had him. Bred to be a fighting dog. Only after extensive vet bills and care did I find this out. They nearly killed him on top of weaning him too early. But yet he is the friendliest dog I have ever had and met. So smart and dependable that I was able to train him later on to become a seizure assistance dog. He has been attacked by many dogs in the past. Most of them were non aggressive breeds so to speak. Yet his spirit is strong.
My soon to be second service dog is a Doberman. My mother tried to fight me on the fact that they are all aggressive and cannot be trusted. I simply showed her the hard facts of history. They were bred to help soldiers in war and to help track and find injured people. Then they became working dogs for the disabled. But yet everyone tells me that he cannot help me due to his breed. He is not even a year old and already loves to help me and alert me of my condition before it hits. My 3 month old cat and 1 yr old son are alot meaner than both dogs. The cat and child rule the house so to speak. It's not genetics that make breeds aggressive it's how they are raised and cared for, just like people. There have been bans on places I have lived and where I currently live. But luckily my dogs have been able to stay by myside due to their ability to work. However if the breed was to be wiped out where would that leave those of us who depend on them for medical reasons? There are alot of mixed and full breeds out there that work. A vast majorty of people I know or knew have owned working dogs who were under the "ban list." If they were to be truly banned who would help these people replace their beloved pets/friends/medical help? If there was such a harsh law to wipe them out then another breed will replace the one's that are currently on the list. The bad people who make bad decisions will always find a way it's our job to help speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Another thing "pit bulls" were bred for weight pulling not fighting. They are the best wheelchair/mobility assistance breeds around.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When I'm down my pets turns my frown upside down
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2 Dogs: Harley and Diesel
2 rabbits: Mystic and Thumper
1 Cat- Luna
Mousey is offline  
post #39 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-20-2011, 10:06 PM
Newborn Pup
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11
 
First, I find the information presented in this post and the discussion fascinating. Thank you for compiling it and all your responses. That being said, there is also a nature/nuture aspect of individual dogs irrespective of the breed. To further complicate matters, dogs mature at different ages to full maturity, with some breed individual dogs not realizing what their ultimate personality will be until age 5-7, such as in Tibetan Terriers.

So, in considering your choice of dog and aggression, you need to meet the parents of a dog if it is pure bred or try to obtain as much information about any rescue you are considering. Rescues will have gone through temperament testing and will have had plenty of observation by the staff; also research in the 1970's (psychology) with rats have shown that impoverished environments compared with enriched environments produced different behavioral (intelligence) results when genetics was controlled for (if I remember correctly). So you need to be willing to take the time and energy with every dog in your household to stimulate them and work continually on training to teach them impulse control. An excellent book on that subject is "Control Unleashed" which is available on Amazon.

Finally, no single dog, even great dogs, can ever be completely trusted in terms of their ability to be offensively or defensively aggressive. We, as owners, need to be constantly vigilant when out with our dogs to ward off any conflict.
Tibetanlove is offline  
post #40 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-21-2011, 08:40 PM
Zoo Keeper
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,367
 
I didnt read it all but these " aggressive " breeds are often the most LOYAL LOVING willing to do anything for you dogs. When I was little we had a rottweiler and I want my kids to grow up with the same breed. Pitts are the most amazingly loyal dog ... all this " aggressive" stuff is BS!!!!! and it makes me mad.

Proud Mommy to-
Cat: Emma
Rats: Apollo, Yuki, Ember, Mei
Hamsters: Kodi, Bear, Koda, Abbi


Elliriyanna is offline  
post #41 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-24-2011, 12:22 AM
canis lupus familiaris
 
Blacksheep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 552
 
I wouldn't say that there are aggressive breeds...just dominant breeds and any dominant dog can turn people/animal aggressive.

I'm against BSL but look at it from a shelter's point of view. Should they adopt out a dog so set on killing another dog that it poses a danger to the public especially when there are other dogs that aren't aggressive at all?

Now the issue with BSL is that it assumes ALL dogs of a certain breed/mix will be that way. Take my friend's old dog Lisa. She is a pitt x rottie oh man dangerous. Yeah she would nurse kittens and wouldn't kill a fly. Seriously she would nip at them then try to nudge them away haha. Same with my in law's Hannah (pit x boxer.)

I believe I posted an updated list here and there were some pretty interesting breeds on there (like pugs.)
Blacksheep is offline  
post #42 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-25-2011, 09:22 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacksheep View Post
I'm against BSL but look at it from a shelter's point of view. Should they adopt out a dog so set on killing another dog that it poses a danger to the public especially when there are other dogs that aren't aggressive at all?
Except that is NOT a breed issue, it is a DOG issue. Shelters need to evaluate INDIVIDUAL dogs. Not every dog of every breed (or mix of breeds) is going to behave the same way. I have seen some EXTREMELY dangerous dog-aggressive Labradors and Golden Retrievers, while I have also seen some EXTREMELY friendly, easy going, mild-mannered Rottweilers and pit bulls. If a dog is truly aggressive and dangerous, it should NOT be adopted out by the shelter, NO MATTER what breed it is.

The other thing to consider: Dog aggression is NOT the same as human aggression. Not everyone is capable of dealing with a dog aggressive animal, but for those people who CAN and are responsible about handling their animals, should they be told they can't keep their beloved pet?

Finally, there are varying degrees of aggression. I, personally, have NEVER met or heard of a dog, even a pit bull, who was TRULY dog aggressive in that it would try to kill every dog it ever saw. Instead, MOST of these dogs are dog selective, meaning they will get along with some dogs, but not others. That doesn't mean they are bent on killing those dogs they don't like, it just means you can't throw them in a yard together and expect them not to get in an argument. My Staffordshire/Pointer mix falls into this category, and yet despite being dog selective I can take her into public without any fears of any problems involving another dog. (The ONLY time I would ever have such a problem is if someone else came up and threw their dog into my dog's face, which honestly could result in a fight no matter what dogs are involved!) My dad's Border Collie/Labrador mix also falls into this "dog selective" category. Others are dog tolerant - in fact in my experience MOST dogs of ALL breeds fall into this category. This means the dog tolerates most other dogs, especially if those dogs follow the "rules of society" (in other words, have been socialized). It doesn't mean the dog won't fight, given the right situation, but it does mean the dog isn't out looking for a fight and would be happier avoiding fights. My Malamute/Brittany mix falls into this category. And then there is the "dog friendly" category, in which the dog loves every other dog it meets and can get along with everyone. I have know very very very very few dogs that actually fit this category. In fact, just like true, extreme dog aggression, this category seems to be an exception, just on the other end of the spectrum. I had a Rottweiler/Shepherd mix who truly fell into this category. You COULD throw any other dog into her face and she loved them immediately. I honestly can't think of any other dogs I've known who fell into this category, *maybe* one or two I'm forgetting, but most/all others fell into the "dog tolerant" or "dog selective" categories.

Where dog aggression can be a problem in those breeds bred for fighting (NOT ALL breeds who are targeted by BSL were bred for fighting though!), other kinds of aggression can be an issue in other breeds, or individual dogs. Some dogs can be extremely aggressive towards small animals. These dogs can become a danger to people with toy breeds, since those toy dogs may look like "prey" to this small animal aggressive dog. The person trying to save their little dog from attack can be bit in the process. Other dogs can be extremely food aggressive. This is actually probably a far more common problem than true dog aggression. Such a dog will guard ANYTHING it considers food, and may guard it extremely aggressively. Such dogs can pose a serious public safety threat, because you never know when you might happen upon such a dog who is guarding something it considers food. Such dogs also come out of shelters, and can become a serious threat for your average, unsuspecting dog lover who adopts such a dog. Other dogs, particularly herding breeds, can become dangerous to small children. Many herding breeds will nip and try to herd, especially when not given an outlet for their energy and instinct. Such behaviors can result in injury. If we want to start banning breeds who "might" be dog aggressive, then we need to consider these other behaviors as well. Should herding breeds also be banned, because they "might" bite a child who isn't going where the dog thinks it should go? If "dog aggressive" breeds are to be destroyed because they "might" pose a public safety hazard, then maybe we need to destroy those "small animal aggressive" Breeds as well (such as hunting breeds), because they could too pose a public safety hazard. And let's not forget the infamous food aggressive dog...

BSL does NOTHING to solve aggressive dog problems. The only thing BSL does is create a scapegoat while ignoring the true issue.
Sorraia is offline  
post #43 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-27-2011, 07:01 PM
canis lupus familiaris
 
Blacksheep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 552
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorraia View Post
Except that is NOT a breed issue, it is a DOG issue. Shelters need to evaluate INDIVIDUAL dogs.
I think you are confusing me here. I'm not saying that they don't (ours just put down a big ol st bernard for not passing eval.) However you cannot save them all.

Quote:
The other thing to consider: Dog aggression is NOT the same as human aggression. Not everyone is capable of dealing with a dog aggressive animal, but for those people who CAN and are responsible about handling their animals, should they be told they can't keep their beloved pet?
Those that have control don't have issues. However 99% of people don't have control, thats the problem. It is the same reason retired police dogs face the same fate as many pits. Just the other day I had to severely mace another dog because someone couldn't control their it later to find out the dog had a severe reaction to the mace. It wasn't my fault it came after me and it wasn't the dog's fault that it had that person as an owner. What I'm trying to say here is that dogs aggressive towards other dogs are just as bad as others aggressive towards people. How fair would it be that my dogs that did nothing wrong were punished because a dog known to pick and choose other dogs was allowed out of the shelter? Just because the dog won't attack me doesn't mean I don't see it as a threat to my pack.

Quote:
Finally, there are varying degrees of aggression. I, personally, have NEVER met or heard of a dog, even a pit bull, who was TRULY dog aggressive in that it would try to kill every dog it ever saw.
It is sad to say that some dogs bred for fighting are trained to the point where yes they will attack anything that is a dog. Of course if we eliminated dog fighting, this problem will probably be gone as well.

Quote:
BSL does NOTHING to solve aggressive dog problems. The only thing BSL does is create a scapegoat while ignoring the true issue.
I don't believe I said BSL does solve aggressive dog problems? In fact I believe I said I was against BSL.
Blacksheep is offline  
post #44 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-28-2011, 11:03 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacksheep View Post
I think you are confusing me here. I'm not saying that they don't (ours just put down a big ol st bernard for not passing eval.) However you cannot save them all.
No, I am not confusing you, I am responding to your comment of
I'm against BSL but look at it from a shelter's point of view. Should they adopt out a dog so set on killing another dog that it poses a danger to the public especially when there are other dogs that aren't aggressive at all?
If you are against BSL, why would you support it for shelters? You can't save every dog or every cat, and no where did I say you can, but why would you select certain BREEDS to destroy, which is what BSL does. Shelters need to evaluate INDIVIDUAL dogs instead of destroying dogs because they happen to be a certain breed. By evaluating INDIVIDUAL dogs regardless of breed, good dogs CAN be saved while bad dogs (no matter what breed they are) can be humanely euthanized and the public can be kept safe.


Quote:
Those that have control don't have issues. However 99% of people don't have control, thats the problem. It is the same reason retired police dogs face the same fate as many pits. Just the other day I had to severely mace another dog because someone couldn't control their it later to find out the dog had a severe reaction to the mace. It wasn't my fault it came after me and it wasn't the dog's fault that it had that person as an owner. What I'm trying to say here is that dogs aggressive towards other dogs are just as bad as others aggressive towards people. How fair would it be that my dogs that did nothing wrong were punished because a dog known to pick and choose other dogs was allowed out of the shelter? Just because the dog won't attack me doesn't mean I don't see it as a threat to my pack.
And that control issue is something A LOT of people have regardless what breed or what kind of aggression it is. There are certain people's house I will NOT go to because they have no control over their dogs. While their dogs are not aggressive, they are poorly mannered, and frankly when I go over for a visit I don't want to be jumped on, period.

Again this should be an individual evaluation (of both dog and owner), NOT breed stereotyping. BSL is NOT the answer. Proper temperament testing and evaluation, and dangerous dog laws ARE. Dangerous dog laws do NOT stereotype base don breed the way BSL does. Dangerous dog laws DO evaluate the individual dog and its history. THAT is an appropriate and responsible action to take to make society safer for both people and dogs.


Quote:
It is sad to say that some dogs bred for fighting are trained to the point where yes they will attack anything that is a dog. Of course if we eliminated dog fighting, this problem will probably be gone as well.
Those INDIVIDUAL dogs need to be euthanized if they are a danger to society. That does NOT mean the breeds those dogs happen to belong to are dangerous though. I have a dog who is 1/4 American Staffordshire Terrier. She is neither dog aggressive nor human aggressive, she isn't food aggressive or aggressive in any other way. She has a strong prey drive, but she is well trained enough she can manage and control that prey drive. However if BSL were in effect in my area, I would be forced to euthanize her. I would be forced to euthanize a GOOD dog because she looks like a pit bull. She may only be 1/4 American Staffordshire, but to the naive and "ignorant" public she looks all "pit bull". Even though she's been DNA tested, that 1/4 may be enough for the authorities to confiscate her. Why should my dog, who has gone through extensive training to be a good member of society, be euthanized JUST because she is part AmStaff? JUST because AmStaffs were developed from dogs who were bred for fighting?

If we start eliminating breeds based on their history, there are a LOT of breeds out there that will need elimination, more than those being currently targeted by BSL. All breeds ever bred for fighting or baiting should be eliminated, all breeds ever bred for guarding should be eliminated, because those breeds can potentially be dangerous when put in the wrong hands. We will have to include those breeds who were not actually bred for those purposes, but were bred from other breeds that were developed for those purposes, because the same behaviors and tendencies may be passed on. That list will include, but not be limited to, (and not listing all the breeds commonly targeted by BSL) Tibetan Terrier, Beaceron, Briard, Catahoula Leopard Dog and other "Cur" breeds, Plott Hound, English Coonhound, Kai Dog, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Boston Terrier, Irish Terrier, all breeds of Bulldog, all breeds of Mastiff, Great Dane, Boxer, Schipperke, Pyrenean Mountain dog, Komodor, Maremma Sheedog, Canaan Dog, the Laika breeds, Shar Pei, and Chow Chow.

Again, the individual dog, NOT the breed, needs to be considered. You can have bad dogs of ANY breeds. Labrador Retrievers have killed and maimed people, showing that even America's favorite "family dog" can be aggressive. ANY dog can be dangerous. BSL ignores that fact and instead targets innocent, GOOD dogs simply because of their breed.

Quote:
I don't believe I said BSL does solve aggressive dog problems? In fact I believe I said I was against BSL.
Your statement quoted above indicates otherwise. If you are completely against BSL, you don't say "I'm against BSL, BUT" Instead you look for alternatives to BSL. My proposed alternative is dangerous dog laws and temperament testing and evaluation, which will target individual dogs instead of stereotyping by breed.
Sorraia is offline  
post #45 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-28-2011, 07:43 PM
canis lupus familiaris
 
Blacksheep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 552
 
Of course...just throw out the part where I said

Quote:
Now the issue with BSL is that it assumes ALL dogs of a certain breed/mix will be that way.
Now since you're all fluffed up and I'm laughing at you picking and choosing like a PETA member or something....

The part where I was talking about shelters putting down dogs was a response to
Quote:
not all aggression is human aggression
hence why I said that regardless...aggression is aggression.

And about fighters being put down...did you miss the point? I believe it was a reply to you never seeing a dog out to kill another dog.

Go ahead, reply back. I will just get you on comprehension and understanding...but thats the problem with BSL as well. People can't comprehend and refuse to understand.

And just for the record, check under the dog section for that list. Clearly I think its a joke and so do most people there. I will take it seriously when every pit bull and every pug become severe hard core killers.
Blacksheep is offline  
Reply

Tags
banned, bsl, restriction


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome