ANTI-dog Culture Organization

Would you support an "ANTI-dog culture" organization, if that existed?

Would you?

• Would you buy the products/services they sold (if they benefited you/family/friends or simply enraged dognuts)?
• Donate money to help finance the organization?
• Help with some kind of service, like writing articles, programming, or contacting the news or whatever useful for the cause?

Anyway, would you collaborate with some kind of whatever real and pro-active that could help a non-profit organization -- made by quite knowledgeable and actionable people on the matter -- that would work aggressively in the business of ANTIDOGNUTTERY?

Please let me know your thoughts about this. If you have suggestions, even better. Appreciated.

--- Update:

• It would be a Legal initiative, nothing nefarious or such. However it will be Edgy, for sure.
• Money is not the main issue, although it is quite important, like web site hosting and security just to start. Help could be provided in several different ways, according to the willingness and knowledge of each one. Money is really For the cause, no intention at all to get rich here. Even physical safety is paramount, we are up against US$250 Billion and gazilions of deranged minds. Just by saying this in public is quite a risk, but I'm not so dumb..
• The most important here is Engagement from the dog "hatting" community. Just an org with a few people, no matter how committed they were, can not do much.
• Supporters could help the cause Anonymously, they are not to be exposed.

Let me say that I still do Not have an answer for many things, and certainly nor will I for all things, so that is why I want to know if I can count on the collaboration of the anti-dognuttery community. Specially persons who are way smarter than me in several specific fields.

Keep the ideas coming! 

Comments:

USEREEEGuba69

What would they do though? It depends, if it executed dogs, probably not, if it funded anti rabies medicine, helped with dog free spaces, or just help with stray dogs, probably yes

USERDr333999

executed dogs

No, nothing like that.

It would be like more educational in the meaning of "don't give a fish to a hungry person, teach that hungry person how to fish".

- Help with dog free spaces, yes
- Help with stray dogs (directly), not at all

We would not even get near dogs. It is about people.

Sorry I cannot be more precise at this moment.

USERMyCatRules47

I see nothing wrong with campaining for the culling dogs where it is needed. India or example, has a HUGE stray dog problem. Authorities do nothing about this due to pressure from foreign NGOs despite many thousands of people dying a horrific death from rabies every year. Hospitals are always running out of the vaccine due to the huge number of attacks, yet these dogs are still not culled. People are literary dying in the tens of ths every year because of western dog nuttery. This is totally unacceptable. Antidog organisations will need to counter the effect of foreign animal rights groups push to the government into action. Human lives must come first.

USERDr333999

Human lives must come first.

Perfect!

We then need to find ways to help accomplish that, right there in India, where I do Not live.

Some people from India here?

Perhaps we could draft a general plan that could be used as a starting point for their location.

USERMyCatRules47

"Perhaps we could draft a general plan that could be used as a starting point for their location."

That's a great idea! We also need to need to put pressure on our local NGOs to butt out of affairs of other countries. The people of India do not give us crap for eating cows, animal rights organisations should stop giving India crap for culling dangerous, disease carrying dogs.

USEREEEGuba69

No problem, although when you can make another post, as more people will probably ask for details

USERThomas-Kuhn

Interesting idea! I think you should think more on it and give it a go.

We all 'hate' dogs here. And I do hate dogs. But, thinking about it more, I feel that dog culture is out of balance. If the balance was restored, I could like dogs.

I would still not want a dog, or want to be with dogs. But, the valence of my feeling for dogs would shift from neutral, and even perhaps to positive over some time.

Like my feelings for foxes. Foxes carry rabies, and they might eat a creature I liked. But, it's rare to run across a rabid fox, there is some (not now adequate) societal support if I run across one, and there are many things I can do to prevent the second instance. Giving that I'm not being attacked by foxes every day, foxes are not shitting on my lawn, ect, ..I can like them.

No promises there, about dogs. It's a personal hypothesis.

USERsatsugene

Likewise. I didn't one day decide that I wanted to antagonize dog owners or dogs. It was just something that kept bubbling up to the top as a social and safety issue as I saw increasingly common antisocial or illegal behavior with them.

If they were just animals people kept at home that didn't cause neighborhood violence or nuisances... they'd just be another hobby that doesn't look fun to me.

But when people do take them places, and want legal protection to do so even if their animal causes severe harm to others... yeah it is something I want to work against.

USERDr333999

yeah it is something I want to work against.

Thanks a lot!

USERDr333999

Fair and I respect that.

The ultimate envisioned goal is for the total eliminination of dogs, what is obviously an Herculean and almost impossible task. But, if in the middle of the way dog people start to behave with mininal civility, quite possible a compromise could be agreed upon.

Please check the update of the opening post.

USERThomas-Kuhn

I've been thinking about what you've written.

I would not be sad one bit if dogs were completely eliminated from the world, but the question I have is what the dog owners would do then...

Would they turn to cats then?..(shudder) It's already started with cats. Hairless cats, cats with very short legs, and at the the other end, cats bred with wild cats, cats bred to act "like dogs", with the result that they ruin houses and attack other animals.

Emotional support tigers on planes. ...Ok, I admit that is a big stretch. But I never underestimate the insanity of society.

Foxes are newly domesticated via a program in Russia. Would then be next? Dangerous foxes, and Fennec fox types..

Let's get rid of all pets then...but I predict this will happen again, somehow. GMO's? Robots? Maybe worse, like an impulse that needs to be expressed and is prevented for too long.

What is this impulse? Why do we have the need to hack natural selection, not just in reasonable ways, but in horrid, out of balance ways? What is going on here?

It seems we need to find a way to live sanely and in balance with the world. Damn our prefrontal cortexes.

But we are going to need those abilities we have to survive as a species. Ignoring that we can hack things and alter nature is also a grave mistake.

So let's figure it out, because that is we do best. Let's develop some restraint and wisdom, because that is what we need......godspeed.

USERDr333999

Foxes are newly domesticated via a program in Russia.

I guess it is prohibited now. No wild animals as pets anymore as I heard. Owners can keep the ones they already have until they die but cannot get new ones. Litters go to zoos.

Emotional support tigers on planes

Ah, ah, insanity will always exist but I don't think it will be like it is today. Just remember people smoking everywhere like in airplanes. So, let's not overcomplicate things. What we already have is complicated enough. Thanks to dognutters.

May robots could take the void. There some already. Could we make money making/selling them?

ESAs Emotional Support Artifacts - Robots, tasers, powerful ultrasonic deterrents...

Wouldn't they be nice?

USERlordperiwinkle

I dislike the word "execution", when we are talking about dogs. It has punitive/judicial connotations. The proper term would be euthanasia.

USERsatsugene

It would come down to what the organization does and how it does it. I evaluate all charities in a similar way:

• low administrative overhead (<30 all="" are="" collected="" donor="" funds="" marketing="" mission="" not="" of="" on="" operation="" p="" relations="" salaries="" spent="" the="">
• Transparent/third party audited
• Honors (as required) directed donations. If I ask DF charity to spend all $100 I give it on “dog law”, it would be illegal for them to use any of it for say buying vicious dogs off of problem owners because mainstream shelters are too irresponsible
• Success over time, results. I rarely support “awareness” efforts and instead focus on law or direct action
• If they are active in my area or areas I have business in.

I do not think I would support an organization whose goal was to “show the absurdity of dog ownership” but I would support an organization whose goal is to keep dogs out of public places—leaving it to them to bribe businesses, cover their legal expenses for false accusations, to lobby local governments for bans, to pressure landlords, etc.

I would support a drop-off euthanasia clinic, for people who determine their own dog is a public safety hazard. Who just want it put down without pressure from vets, shelters, or dog nuts. I’d look at it just like I would opportunities for people to surrender guns or have their “random bag of white power” chemically tested without risk of a possession charge.

I would support an effort to get stays off the street... but I cannot personally use my money to support salvaging those collected. It is just wasteful and too high risk to me to put these animals back in the pet supply or allow the owner to redeem them. Running at large = irresponsibility on the part of the owner.

I don’t care if others do support reclamation or “rehoming” shelters, but I will not. I would work to require they be audited, inspected, and that vicious dogs be intercepted by the state, or that they are charged for fraud for misrepresentations.

I’d support efforts to change/repeal laws that create opportunities for dogs in conservation areas.

USERDr333999

Success over time, results. I rarely support “awareness” efforts and instead focus on law or direct action

I agree with everything you said. Already taking notes.

Regarding the point above, yes, results are expected in some ways, by utilising a combination of awareness AND action, not just one or the other. I know, it's obscure now but I already have a good idea about what can be done. And all can be adapted and improved along time.

Ah, and conservation areas are something I really care about.

Please check the update of the opening post.

USERDogsSuckThrowaway

I would buy a t-shirt if it made me feel superior.

USERDr333999

That would make you feel superior, for sure, for a very good cause.

Thanks for the support!

USERmuttsdontsmile

Yes, yes I would. But since there isn't many anti-dog movements/ products, the most I can do is NOT support pro-dog products/ movements. I already boycott any dog merchandise, films and games anyway.

USERDr333999

You're doing good already. If you could be more vocal for example it would be fantastic!

Stay tunned and you get ideas on the how.

USERmuttsdontsmile

Thanks for the advice

USERGoT_S8_Was_Great

I wouldn't because of how crazy dognutters are. You might get attacked.

USERDr333999

There are a number of ways that members (I'm calling them members but no registration or the like is required) could help without exposing themselves.

We all know how dognutters are dangerous.

T-shirts would be just one of physical products, there would be others.

USERGenericWhyteMale

Which other products are you thinking of?

USERDr333999

At the right time I'll post them. Yet in the oven. Some are already burning an only available to special members.

USERDecepticon6

I mean...my Amazon smile goes to DogsBite...so...yeah.

USERsatsugen

Good to know. I wasn't aware they were any dog-critical orgs available.

USERDr333999

And we all know cats are way better than dogs (dog lovers hate that and take that as an ubber offense!)

Thanks a lot!

USERDr333999

Sorry, I didn't get it.

I know Amazon dot com is a dog nutter company where employees can bring their dogs to work but that is it. I know nothing else about them.

USERDecepticon6

They have an option where they donate every time you make a purchase to an organization of your choice, called Smile Amazon. The organization I have is DogsBite, so a donation is made to DogsBite whenever I place an order.

USERDr333999

Ah, ok. I don't shop from Amazon. And DogsBite deserve any money they can get for their great work.

USERGenericWhyteMale

Dogs are an invasive species

I’m a dumbass when it comes to tech; how do you that and can Prime do the same?

USERDecepticon6

Yes, you can utilize it with Prime. Type in Smile Amazon, and there should be a bar at the top where you can choose a nonprofit of your liking.

USERbeachlover77

Honestly I rarely donate money to anything or buy things unless I need them for day to day living. I would possibly consider donating money to a cause that was trying to pass legislation to punish owners whose dogs have attacked people and banning the bully breeds.

USERDr333999

Money is not the most important thing.

Your commitment and engagement are.

Appreciated.

USERHitlers_Titty_Milk

Hell, I’ll goin in a heartbeat

USERDr333999

Thanks a lot!

USERDOOMCarrie

It would depend on their exact stance. I'm all for tightening laws on dogs and everything, but not for a complete dog ban (I wouldn't mind it but it isn't really a reasonable solution).

USERDr333999

a complete dog ban (I wouldn't mind it but it isn't really a reasonable solution).

It IS a reasonable solution.

IF one wanted a dog, it would be really, extremely difficult to get, but , then they could have their dog. Not the insanity we face today.

Just think of how Iceland was before the dog trend started. People want their sanity back.

USERDOOMCarrie

I don't think it is when there are other ways to deal with the problem. If I was in charge, I would require people to get a license to own a dog, and that would require passing tests to prove a basic understanding of them and how to raise and train them, including a breed-specific test. (The licenses would be breed-specific). I would have low tolerance for breaches of dog laws, no giving a million warnings or fines. Dogs would get taken away pretty quickly, people would be jailed if they fucked up bad enough or kept doing stuff they're not supposed to. I think that kind of approach would be more fair to good owners.

USERDr333999

I think that kind of approach would be more fair to good owners.

Legislation is the part that will take the longest. Other actions would take priority but would be dealt with for sure, they have to.

BSL is kind of tricky. We all know how the pitbull lobby uses that to derail any kind of logical approach. My point again is all dogs are dangerous, in way or another.

Regarding good owners; I've never, ever met a truly responsible dog owner, just quasy responsible ones. All of them say they are responsible. Not in my book.

However they can be helped if they helped us. How? By convincing their co-dogowners who are definitely not responsible on the true responsibility of having dogs. They help us at the same time they are helping themselves, fair to everybody.

Let me say that I still do Not have an answer for many things, and certaily nor will I for all things, so that is why I want to know if I can count on the collaboration of the anti-dognuttery community. Specially persons who are way smarter than me in several specific fields.

USERGenericWhyteMale

Dogs are an invasive species

There’s no way ‘responsible’ dog owners would agree to this if the goal was eradication of dogs. You’d have to concentrate on tighter laws and reward them in some way (idk what/how).

USERDr333999

Well, we could "reward" them by letting them keep their dog IF they become TRULY responsible dog owners, with OR tighter laws.

Fair to everyone.

USERGenericWhyteMale

Dogs are an invasive species

I’d do it if a good percentage of the proceeds went to spay/neutering services, dogfree spaces and for attack victims.

Not too sure how merch would work coz like someone else said, might get attacked. Even if it’s not too inflammatory.

Maybe something like statistics and some sort of slogans that support victims I’d totally rock.

It would be hilarious to have ‘Pit Hag’ or similar stuff on some and have them unironically wear it but all proceeds go to supporting BSL.

USERDr333999

It would be hilarious to have ‘Pit Hag’ or similar stuff on some and have them unironically wear it

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm always looking for "crazy" ideas. Keep them coming.

Please also check the update of the opening post.

USERtangre79

Where's my emotional support Mercedes?

Not gonna lie I probably wouldn't buy products because anti-dog nutters can be just as annoying but I would totally donate to causes involving banning pitbulls, making it illegal to bring a dog anywhere that has food without it being a specifically dog friendly establishment, ban non service dogs from hospitals, ban non service dogs from flights, etc.

I would donate like crazy if my idea of owners being required to be licenced to own a dog and dogs require to be registered idea actually happened.

USERDr333999

I would totally donate to causes involving banning
pitbullsALL DOGS, making it illegal to bring a dog anywhere that has food without it being a specifically dog friendly establishment, ban non service dogs from hospitals, ban non service dogs from flights, etc.

Just like that, yes

USERtangre79

Where's my emotional support Mercedes?

Banning all dogs is drastic. We could co exist if there were more laws and regulations surrounding them, including immediate euthanasia of dogs that attack, immediate euthanasia of stray dogs (any dog found without a collar, tough luck for their owner if they don't keep a collar on their dog and it's found wandering) higher fines for dogs escaping, defecating and not having it picked up, biting, etc. The only dogs that need to be banned are dangerous breeds like pitbulls, rottweilers, german shepherds, etc.

USERDr333999

The only dogs that need to be banned are dangerous breeds like pitbulls, rottweilers, german shepherds, etc.

No, Simply no.

All dogs, no exceptions, either sicken, distress,+++ or kill people and nature.

All dogs need to be banned. IF one wanted a dog, it would be really, extremely difficult to get, but , then they could have their dog. Not the insanity we face today.

Think of the IHATEDOGS YouTube channel.

USERtangre79

Where's my emotional support Mercedes?

That wouldn't be banning all dogs. If you can still get one, that's not a ban.

And like I said, we wouldn't be facing this insanity if dogs were regulated better. Which you seem to agree on. When I say ban inherently dangerous breeds, I mean BAN them. Gone. They can't be purchased or held anywhere, no matter how many hoops you jump through.

This is why I've talked about how owners need to be licensed by taking an exam requiring regular renewal and dogs need to be registered requiring repeated training also requiring renewal. Regardless of breed.

USERDr333999

That wouldn't be banning all dogs. If you can still get one, that's not a ban.

Seems like I contradicted myself, right?

What I intended to say is that things will have to made in phases, impossible to do them all at once.

Like I said above, the ultimate envisioned goal is for the total eliminination of dogs, what is obviously an Herculean and almost impossible task. But, if in the middle of the way dog people start to behave with mininal civility, quite possible a compromise could be agreed upon.

I totally agree with a complete ban on inherently dangerous breeds. They must have a special place in this quest for sanity and safety, we just to remember that this is BSL so we have to very careful with that, we all know how the pit bull lobby loves to create a mess in this regard. Not, easy but again I agree it has to be done.

Sorry if I sound confusing, it's 2am here.

Please check the update of the opening post.

And thanks again for your suggestions.

USERBlondeweezie

Yes, of course!

USERDr333999

Thank you very much!

USERMeechiJ

I’m interested in hearing more of your ideas.

USERDr333999

No problem. Soon.

USEROrangePippins

I would if it approached it from a human-protection angle so it didn't just seem pathological, i.e. "people deserve quiet spaces, let's end barking which causes mental anguish," or "we all deserve to walk the streets without fear, let's end ownership of dangerous dogs," or "people deserve to go out in public without their allergies being assaulted or made to interact with animals. end public safe spaces for dogs, promote emotional support for people first."

USERDr333999

approached it from a human-protection angle

That is exactly what I want.

It is about the "dog culture" as a whole, not just the owner or/and the dog.

I already have a number of these drafted.

USERspookyfuchs

Products? Depends - if you sold stuff that gets recommended a lot here between each other to help curb other people's dogs or help defend ourselves against dogs should we find ourselves being attacked, yes (mace, cayenne pepper, outdoor cameras, etc).

Donate money? Depends - Can I specify which initiative of the org the donation must be used for? What is the ratio of donations intake to staff salary, overhead, and actual mission outreach and objectives?

Help? Yes - Though I haven't carved out the time to do so yet, months ago I wanted to create a database of every state/city/locality and their laws regarding dogs (leash laws, health department laws, etc) so that way if someone is having a problem, they could use the database as a starting point for where to find information in their locality (knowing it may not be 100% up to date given the size of the database, but trying my best to keep it UTD and have working links to every locality's ordinance page). I have to read government regulations for a living; some of that being local/state govt, so it's something I'm used to doing for work (and you wouldn't believe how awful some cities' websites are). Any research type role I would be interested in assisting with, free time permitting.

Given the kind of work I do, I would like to be kept anonymous if doing this kind of research/use a pseudonym.

Looking forward to what you come up with and any new info you provide on this project.

USERDr333999

yes (mace, cayenne pepper, outdoor cameras, etc).

Ha, ha, I was just reading sbout them! And beyond!

Donating money? I truly undrestand what you are saying. Me neither would donate if I didn't know what/when/how... I'm still in the pre-planning stage.

Help? What you do would be perfect! If we could get every person to contribute with something of what they do best, well, we would have a lot of work done for the cause.

It's going to be a collaborative project, many people working together even just when they have the time available. Good will is the key.

Anonymity. Absolutely yes.

I'll keep in touch. Thanks a lot.

USERIhateyourstupidmutt

I would definitely buy merchandise. I love wearing items (shirts/hats) that start conversations.

It is actually very difficult to find anti dog merchandise. I have only 1 shirt and would gladly add more to my collection.

USERDr333999

That's great! When I have them, I'll let you guys know.

USERDr333999

Please keep leaving your comments, ideas and suggestions, fellas.

I'll reply as soon as I can.

USERTyler630

You're posting on dogfree. I think you already know what the answer is.

USERDr333999

Tyler, you'd be amazed if you knew how many dognutters are here at dogfree(!).

You see, you were downvoted just because you said that.

We are living in a dognuttery world.

USERGenericWhyteMale

Dogs are an invasive species

If you read the replies, no.

USERdoggohno

I'm bored

I wouldn't buy anything, because I'm strapped for cash and it's not a priority. Regardless, I disagree with saying it should be "edgy" and all. People won't take it seriously. Professionalism is key, IMO.

USERDr333999

No problem. Anyway, like I said, money is not the only way to help. But again I'm not trying to convince anybody, I just want to know if a good amount of people would like to join.

Regarding the word "edgy", it was used incorrectly. I'd have chosen something like stringent and intense, not the regular kind of information we see out there where people seem to be apologising when talking about the harzards of dogs. I always have 2 or 3 different languages in mind at most times, so I make mistakes.

And it does, yes, intend to be "professional". For sure.

USERwatisurproblem

i honestly will do all if the above if i can!!

it's a great idea to fight dog nutters

 

USERPisces_Smile

Im down. I cant fight a war for you though: that is where it is going.

I SERIOUSLY wonder if the federal police are arming with AR-15s because of how many dog lovers have dangerous dogs AND guns, and because AFTER someone us banned from purchasing firearms, they simply get trained and deadly pitbuls....