print page | close window

should dangerous dogs be banned?

printed from: st james ethics centre
forum name: ethical dilemmas
forum description: ... explore real or theoretical ethical dilemmas
URL: http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1927
printed date: 23 July 2014 at 6:52am
software version: Web Wiz Forums 7.9 - http://www.webwizforums.com


topic: should dangerous dogs be banned?

posted by: Rachel
subject: should dangerous dogs be banned?
date posted: 22 December 2006 at 11:38am

Our neighbours moved in a couple of months ago and brought an agressive pitbull with them. I've never been all that worried about it until a few weeks ago when it attacked a large german shepherd unprovoked. I then discovered from animal control that it has quite a history of attacking other dogs. I'm not sure how the owners have managed to hang onto it for so long, but animal control seemed prepared to put up with it as long as the dog only attacked other dogs. But how many dog owners are going to stand by and watch their dog ripped to shreds without intervening?

Well last Monday afternoon, this dog broke through our fence and attacked my dog (a miniature poodle: not exactly fighting material). I was in the yard at the time and immediately jumped to my dog's aide. I'm not sure how long the three of us were wrestling for. It felt like an eternity but I must have been dragged along the brick pavement because I've taken all the skin from my knees and the tops of my feet. And I'm heavily pregnant. A man from the down the street came to our rescue. I must have been screaming for help pretty loudly and he had to hit this dog on the head 2 or 3 times with a rock before she released my dog. I'm fine, my dog is fine and it now looks as though this dog will be put down.

These http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30692/sto ry.htm - dogs are banned in New South Wales in Australia. I'm not sure about the other states. They're not banned in New Zealand and I'm wondering why? What is the purpose of having an aggressive dog like this? It costs the tax payer money from all the trips animal control have made to this one family regarding their dog, my trip in an ambulance to the emergency department and goodness knows what else. I've heard reports of people breeding dogs like this for the sport of dog fighting, but this is illegal and can hardly be used as an excuse for keeping the breed.

The other question I have is whether a family that has produced a dog such as this should be allowed to get another?


-------------
Outside a dog, a book is man's friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx


replies:

posted by: MAWIMike
date posted: 22 December 2006 at 12:36pm

Rachel,

I'm sorry to hear of your run in.  I hope you and your baby are okay.  I don't agree with a blanket banning of a breed of dog.  However, I definitely agree with eliminating specific dogs regardless of breed who exhibit anti-social behavior. 



-------------
Mike

Don't Make Me Break Out My Flying Monkeys



posted by: SmilingPolitely
date posted: 22 December 2006 at 3:22pm

Rachel: I suspect that it is more the case that breeds that have a 'bad
reputation' are often the fancy of humans who want to have a dog with a
bad reputation; thus the dogs are often mistreated and consequently
exhibit aggressive behaviours. This is coupled with the breed itself being
more predisposed to fighting than, say, your poodle.

I had a german shephard cross dingo and she was the most timid dog i've
ever met - she once got beaten up by a cat and used to jump into my lap
shaking in fear in thunderstorms (she was a big dog, it was endearingly
ridiculous) - she was very well loved and so despite her 'bad reputation'
she was very timid. Nurture counts for more that nature methinks.

-------------
Those who are most often right are also the most likely to admit when they're wrong.



posted by: patrickt
date posted: 23 December 2006 at 1:07am

I went into a store with a friend and a pitbull was under a table in the corner. I plopped down on the floor and the dog came trotting over and rolled onto her back to have her tummy scratched. The owner grinned and said, "Most people think she's bad."

My theory is that nice people have nice dogs and nasty people have nasty dogs. The breed of the dog does have an effect but not as much as environment.




posted by: {ASunshadeLust}
date posted: 23 December 2006 at 2:50am

If there is an animal that is naturally dangerous, I do not believe that people should be aloud to care for them as easily as I can get a cat or a normal dog. A permit, special circumstances or outright illegality seems just. I don't think many people in my city would be happy if the neighbor had a wolf or a bear and if the dog breed is as dangerous then I see no difference.

Judging from the two above posts, though, we must be sure that by banning or restricting a species, breed or by putting down a specific animal, we are not simply hiding the problem which is the human, not the animal.

-------------
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason">



posted by: Rachel
date posted: 23 December 2006 at 6:30am

This particular pitbull has never attacked a human and from what I have read of the breed, they were traditionally bred to be friendly to humans but aggressive towards other dogs. I think originally they were supposed to attack bulls on the way to market and when this was banned, they were bred for dog fighting.

But even though she did not bite or attack me, I have sustained pretty impressive injuries on my knees from being dragged along the brick pavement whilst trying to rescue my dog. I can remember poking her in the eyes with my thumbs but to no avail and even tried to pry apart her jaws. I have no trouble prying apart the jaws of my two dogs, something I do to get them to swollow tablets, but her jaws I could not open at all. This dog is a solid, very strong, instinctive fighting dog and has no place in civilized society and should certainly not be a family pet.

I agree that it is a generalisation to say that all dogs of this breed are killing machines and should be banned. But some generalisations are necessary and important. If statistics show that this breed has a higher rate of violence towards other animals, even though there may be some exceptions, then breeding and trade of these animals should stop. It is an unecessary cost and burden to have them around.

In QLD there is a requirement that young children wear hats to school if they are to play in the playground. This is to reduce the rate and cost of skin cancer. But not every child who goes without a hat will develop skin cancer. It is a generalisation.


-------------
Outside a dog, a book is man's friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx



posted by: Rachel
date posted: 23 December 2006 at 6:37am

And it's not always the owner to blame, as seems to be the case in the latest attack in Tasmania:

http://http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,20963123 -3462,00.html - Owner 'never imagined' pit bulls would attack

  • December 21, 2006

THE owner of two pit bull terriers that savaged three people in Hobart yesterday never imagined the family pets would drag a man to the ground and tear his ear off.

The pit bull terriers, one a four-year-old full-bred spayed female and the other an intact one-year-old male cross, attacked three people in a quiet suburban street in Hobart yesterday morning.

The attack, in Clarendon St, New Town, put two men and a woman in hospital.

The woman was owner Suyan Lim, 21, who tried to drag the dogs off a visiting friend.

One of the dogs turned on her and then both dogs attacked a neighbour who had come to help.

"We had the girl, Chevy, since she was so little she could fit in the palm of your hand," Ms Lim said.

"My daughter Teisha used to ride on her back and sleep and play with her, she was always gentle.

"It appears that the young male, Piston, may have been the more aggressive one and that Chevy just followed his lead.

"Although they were part of the family and dearly loved, I want them destroyed. You could never have them near people again after what they did."

Ms Lim and her partner Max Jones, 22, believed they had taken all the necessary precautions to keep the dogs. They built two-metre steel fences right around their property and a secure dog enclosure, which the dogs were allowed to leave only when Ms Lim and Mr Jones were at home.

The attack happened about 11am when family friend Drew Roberts entered the yard of the home to visit.

As he opened the gate he noticed the two pit bull terriers loose in the yard and made a run for it, but both dogs attacked before he was able to close the gate.

He suffered injuries to his hip, thigh and calf. Ms Lim tried to drag the dogs off, but was then attacked herself.

A neighbour came to help but was dragged to the ground by the dogs, which bit off part of his ear, narrowly missing his eye.

Two passing tradesmen wielding spirit levels eventually herded both dogs back into the yard and secured the gate.

Hobart City Council will put the dogs down today.





-------------
Outside a dog, a book is man's friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx



posted by: MAWIMike
date posted: 23 December 2006 at 9:46am

Rachel

Here are some US statistics.  The source in our over litigous society is from a law firm that specializes in dog bit law suits.

 

In 2001, an estimated 368,245 victims were treated for dog bite related injuries.

In 2001, an estimated 42% of dog bites (or 154,625) occurred in children age 14 and younger.

Rottweilers and Pit Bulls were involved in 60 percent of the 27 dog bite fatalities that occurred in 1997 and 1998. Rottweilers were involved in 10 deaths, and Pit Bulls were involved in 6

From 1979 through 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human dog bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these deaths.

http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/dogbite-statisti cs.html - http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/dogbite-statisti cs.html

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf - http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

Interesting note is that cocker spaniels and west Highland Terriers appear on the tabular info of killer dogs.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%2 0Clifton.pdf - http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%2 0Clifton.pdf

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/ - http://www.fataldogattacks.com/



-------------
Mike

Don't Make Me Break Out My Flying Monkeys



posted by: DogBros
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 4:17pm

The biggest problem is that breed-specific legislation, true to its name, requires every dog to be classified as a certain breed. This is virtually impossible!

Almost all BSL restricts "pit bulls". What are "pit bulls"? American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are usually thrown into that category. What about American Bulldogs, Bull Terriers, Boxers, or English Bulldogs? To aggravate breed identification conundrums, most legislation adds "and mixes" to the wording. In what I can only assume is an attempt to patch up this mess, the law may helpfully describe the appearance of dogs that fall under the category of "pit bull". Needless to say, a lot of dogs fall under the description of "wide head, broad chest, and short fur". Suddenly you're up to your neck in "pit bulls"!

It is readily acknowledged by anyone familiar with handling a variety of dogs and mix breeds (animal control officers, veterinarians, shelter workers, etc.) that accurate identification of a dog's breed or mix is virtually impossible without registration papers or a pedigree at hand. Considering how rarely an animal control officer (ACO) catches a dog wearing tags, how often do you think an ACO lassos a stray dog that happens to have its pedigree papers? Funny thing, genetics. It causes dogs to come in all shapes and sizes and colors - especially the mixed breeds.

To further the injustice, in many cases the dog's owner is responsible for proving that their dog is not a member of the proscribed breed, a task that is usually as difficult as proving it is a certain breed. This is a clear cut case of "guilty before proven innocent" - Breed misidentification leads to expensive, time-consuming lawsuits against the government (as is happening in QLD NSW and VIC), something that costs taxpayers a lot of money. The animal control departments  identified these lawsuits as one of the worst consquenses of BSL - their precious time and money wasted defending laws that almost nobody in the animal control industry likes.

 Sadly some ACO's want to advance in the chosen field, and will willingly lie in courts to have family pets that have never done anything wrong in life taken and killed.

These sadist pricks have been known to laugh in the faces of crying children as there pet and friend is being sprayed in the face with pepper spray.

 

 




posted by: DogBros
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 4:25pm

Here is just one recent Court case involving the Mis identification of a supposed Pitbull, absolutely disgusting what this dog and owner had to go through  .

Dafrey Vs logan CC

http://www.dafrevlogancc.bigpondhosting.com/ - http://www.dafrevlogancc.bigpondhosting.com/




posted by: DogBros
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 4:32pm

Buddy's story... Capsicum spray and a bullet,Cruelty in the name of Justice!  http://www.geocities.com/raeleanep/countryside.html - http://www.geocities.com/raeleanep/countryside.html



posted by: DogBros
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 4:38pm

TERA TYRANNISED AND PERSECUTED FOR BEING APBT

http://www.geocities.com/terathepitbull/ - http://www.geocities.com/terathepitbull/




posted by: DogBros
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 4:45pm

Any Person who agrees with BSL's is a sick and twisted individual IMO.. There are laws in place to deal with agressive dogs and owners who do not controll them, these are the laws that need to be enforced,And the Ratepayers should DEMAND it from the Councils.

BSL is a waste of time and money whilst instilling a false sence of security in the community for real dangerous dogs still exist.

There will always be antisocial creeps looking to boost their own ego by creating a monster to intimidate and threaten people with. So, what happens when people are blocked from owning "pit bulls"? They'll get some other breed to do the job. Indeed, across the decades we have seen those bad owners tarnish the reputations of Dobermans, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, and now to pit bulls.

Next up: < ??Insert Breed here ??>.

Banning a breed will not stop the sicko creeps that want to create a vicious dog. They have no problem moving on.

It's a hassle to own a dog of a restricted breed.

People who support BSL would say, "Good! We want it to be a hassle. We want it to be hard to own these dogs in order to be sure that only committed owners have them." Unfortunately, logically, it doesn't work out that way at all. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Responsible dog owners are turned off by BSL. Who wants to put up a fence, pay an extra license fee, purchase extra insurance, etc. just to own a dog that everyone discriminates against? Responsible owners are driven away from the breeds that need them the most. Rescue organizations and shelters are overburdened with perfectly good dogs that no one wants. For good owners with lower incomes, caring for a restricted-breed dog is too expensive considering the cost of extra insurance, special licensing fees, and so forth.

On the other hand, irresponsible owners and criminals could care less about BSL. They really don't care about the laws anyway. They already fail to license and vaccinate their dogs. They don't follow leash laws. Their dogs are unsocialized, untrained, and neglected. How can BSL change the way these owners act?

BSL treats all owners exactly the same, whether they are good, responsible owners or neglectful, irresponsible owners. What, then, would inspire a good owner to train their dog and teach it to be a good canine citizen? If the dog has to wear a muzzle on the streets and you have to buy extra insurance to keep it, there's no incentive to spend $100 plus "one hour per week for six weeks" at an obedience class (assuming the dog is even allowed in public).




posted by: SamC
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 9:19pm

 

Dogbros, you say:

DogBros wrote:
To further the injustice, in many cases the dog's owner is responsible for proving that their dog is not a member of the proscribed breed, a task that is usually as difficult as proving it is a certain breed. This is a clear cut case of "guilty before proven innocent"

However, ask any dog owner and they will usually be able to tell you what breed or cross their dog is. Owners know these things. They ask the person who bred the dog and sold it to them.

Some breeds attack more than others. Some breeds are dangerous. They also seem to attract dangerous owners. Dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist. It doesn't really matter if the owners or the dogs are to blame. Banning the breed achieves the same outcome.

In any case, when was the last time you saw a west highland terrier used as a pig dog?  

 



-------------
"It's werid being with you. I do't know what's right or what's wrong any more" Donna Noble



posted by: DogBros
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 10:32pm

http://www.inalbum.com/ia20/display.php?username=blessthebul lys&back=1&filename=Falsely_Accused3&pagenum=1&a mp;btn=1&bgcolor=282951 - Falsley Accused




posted by: DogBros
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 11:00pm

A child killed by a pit bull (or occasionally a Rottweiler) provokes public outcry, calls for a breed ban, and BSL. A child killed by any other breed might get a paragraph or two in the local newspaper. The cases of Nicholas Faibish and Kate-Lynn Logel illustrate this injustice. Nicholas Faibish, age 8, was killed by his family's two pit bulls after his mother left him alone with them. His death sparked weeks of front-page news coverage, calls for a breed ban in California, and ultimately resulted in the passing of a CA state law permitting cities to create breed-specific spay/neuter laws. In May 2005, Kate-Lynn Logel, age 7, was killed by her family's two Alaskan Malamutes after her mother left her alone with them. Her death made the local (Colorado) news for a couple days, then faded away.

In October 2005, Aurora, CO - near where Kate-Lynn was fatally mauled - passed BSL against pit bulls. In the Denver Post, Aurora councilmember Bob Fitzgerald, who supported the BSL, was quoted as saying "The thought of one kid getting hurt is too much for me." Apparently, Kate-Lynn's death was not too much for Mr. Fitzgerald, since he did not suggest passing BSL against Alaskan Malamutes. He, like so many other legislators, have ears only for pit bull attack victims.

What is it that made Nicholas's death so much more outrageous than Kate-Lynn's? Why are pit bull attacks treated with such revulsion and outrage, while equally heinous and gory attacks by other dog breeds are merely given a sympathetic nod? By passing BSL to save victims from specific dog breeds like pit bulls or Rottweilers, legislators and BSL proponents are turning a blind eye to other dog attack victims simply because they weren't attacked by a certain breed of dog. BSL does absolutely nothing to prevent injury or death by unregulated dog breeds. On the other hand, strong non-breed-specific dangerous dog legislation treats all dog attack victims equally regardless of the breed of their attacker.

BSL does not address these root causes behind dog attacks. It simply blames a particular breed or breeds without actually solving the real problem of irresponsible ownership and lack of education. BSL is illogical, expensive, and ineffective. Non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws and anti-cruelty laws are more effective, provided those laws are strongly written and firmly enforced. Increased education (especially for dog owners and children) will also help reduce dog bites/attacks, as will low-cost spay/neuter campaigns. We need more funding for animal control agencies to enforce the laws and tackle dog fighting. These strategies make sense.

BSL is a wet bandaid.

What makes a dog (breed) dangerous?

only individual dogs within that breed may become dangerous via mismanagement on a humans behalf, the breeds are akin to entire races of people, no different.




posted by: DogBros
date posted: 28 January 2007 at 11:19pm

Ethics to dwell upon in Relation To Breed bans BSL and the owners of all dogs, big and small.

The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.




posted by: {ASunshadeLust}
date posted: 29 January 2007 at 1:48am

DogBros, please do not post a bunch of posts in the row. There is an edit function for this.

Your way of starting your argument is very aggressive and full of fallacies such as "Any Person who agrees with BSL's is a sick and twisted individual IMO.." and incredibly biased words such as "These sadist pricks have been known to laugh in the faces of crying children as there pet and friend is being sprayed in the face with pepper spray." You did post some interesting arguments, yet the way you expressed them is biased and almost hysteric.

Sam made an interesting reply, which I fully agree with,

Some breeds attack more than others. Some breeds are dangerous. They also seem to attract dangerous owners. Dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist. It doesn't really matter if the owners or the dogs are to blame. Banning the breed achieves the same outcome.

and yet you simply ignore it. This is not a way to have a constructive discussion.

I have nothing really to add on the topic, as I am not familiar with dogs so it is a bit difficult for me to tell, but as Sam said, "dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist". So if one breed is particularly prone to violence for various reasons (aggressive owners easily make it violent, etc), a ban is well worth considering. It's true that if a ban is very difficult and expensive to maintain, this is also something to factor in.



-------------
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason">



posted by: Pollyanna
date posted: 29 January 2007 at 6:33pm

In the past I have met some lovely Staffordshire Terriers, which I understand are relatives of Pit Bulls.

However, like others here I lean towards banning Pit Bulls and any breed known for dangerous attacks to people and other dogs. Of course, it's not the dog's fault; as DogBros put it:

'There will always be antisocial creeps looking to boost their own ego by creating a monster to intimidate and threaten people with'.

That is exactly the point. Remove the 'weapon' and reduce the harm. It isn't the dogs' fault. It is not the fault of those advocating the banning of the breed. It is entirely the fault of negligent owners.

So what do we lose as a society if we ban a dog breed? An aspect of canine personality that suits certain individuals. Is the benefit of a sweet, socialised Pit Bull worth the misery caused by the bad apples?

DogBros, is the benefit of retaining this breed of dog worth the cost of funding 'animal control agencies to enforce the laws and tackle dog fighting"

The money could be better spent than preserving a dog breed, no matter how lovable the properly-raised ones may be. If it was especially important to Pit Bull lovers, then they would be prepared to fund such animal control from their own, rather than the public's, purse.

If Pit Bulls were banned, would anti-social dog owners could set their sights on the next most 'macho' breed, perhaps Rottweilers, Dobermans or German Shepherds.

If we continued to ban 'the most damaging breed' could we reach a situation where all we are left with are Poodles, Pugs and Chihuahuas? (not Pomeranians, after Mike's post).

However, given the Pit Bulls' and Rottweilers' proven potential to be FAR more dangerous than other breeds, I agree with others here that banning the breeds is reasonable.


-------------
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils -- Hector Berlioz



posted by: MAWIMike
date posted: 29 January 2007 at 9:01pm

SoftCynic,

I have to disagree with your rationale.

If some one posted a statistic that blue eyed pygmy eskimos that dropped out of school before age 16 were more likely to commit murder than brown eyed pygmy eskimos.  Should we then remove the weapon by incarcerating or euthanizing all blue eyed pygmy eskimos?  Should we ban people who have the gene for blue eyed pygmy eskimos from reproducing?

How does banning a breed of dog differ from banning any other genetic trait in humans that may be undesirable?  Since there isn't a 1 to 1 correalation in the dog breeds does banning really make sense.  If the dog bite problem is really an ownership problem, wouldn't it be more ethical to sterilize the owners so they can't pass on their genetic flaws, and to lock them away so they can't pass on there teaching to another generation? 



-------------
Mike

Don't Make Me Break Out My Flying Monkeys



posted by: Pollyanna
date posted: 29 January 2007 at 9:29pm

MAWIMike wrote:
Rottweilers and Pit Bulls were involved in 60 percent of the 27 dog bite fatalities that occurred in 1997 and 1998. Rottweilers were involved in 10 deaths, and Pit Bulls were involved in 6.

From 1979 through 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human dog bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these deaths.

Mike, the figures you quote are compelling and my point is that the gain some pet owners enjoy from us allowing them to keep these breeds is minimal as compared with the costs of attacks by less cared-for dogs.

I don't feel that extending the analogy really touches on the proportionality of the situation, which is at the core of the issue.

In the circumstances, I don't believe a reactive approach in punishing irresponsible dog owners after the fact is satisfactory when there is a more cost-effective solution available, which has minimal human cost (ie. some dog owners might not find their 'perfect match').

As for our poor little blue-eyed Eskimos, I would prefer to work out why they behaved so much worse than the brown-eyed ones (a reverse of Jane Elliot's project here?) rather than stopping them from reproducing.

It would be interesting to know whether the blue-eyed Eskimos existed as a result of deliberate genetic manipulation or not as well. Removing ownership rights of Pit Bulls and Rottweilers is not like, say, removing a variety of human or wild animal (say, sharks) that exists through natural selection, the former because it would amount to totalitarian control and the latter because it interferes with the natural cycle and the food chain.

As I suggested in my last post, if Pit Bull and Rottweiler fans were prepared to fund effective animal control organisations that prevented the vast majority of attacks by ensuring that the breeds were only kept by responsible owners, then that could be one way around it.


-------------
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils -- Hector Berlioz



posted by: station girl
date posted: 03 March 2007 at 9:23pm

blanket bans on breeds are ridiculous, yes some dogs can be violent but i have been brought up with dogs and i have found that the only ones that have shown any sign of violence are those that have been mitreated.
it is unfair to suggest that because one dog is violent then its whole breed will b violent.
i've come across some savage border collies cross kelpies but most ppl wud agree that they r mosly a vry sweet tempered dog.



print page | close window

Powered by Web Wiz Forums version 7.9 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2004 Web Wiz Guide - http://www.webwizguide.info