View Full Version : PITBULL ban is happening today
Pit bulls face ban plan today
By ALAN FINDLAY, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU
ONTARIO'S Attorney General Michael Bryant will announce legislation banning pit bull terriers across the province today. New laws will also include tougher fines and the prospect of jail time for irresponsible dog owners whose pets are involved in attacks, one source strongly hinted.
That provision would include all breeds, beyond just pit bulls, Bryant has said previously.
He has also expressed his support for mandatory restraints such as muzzles on existing pit bulls, which would be spared from the ban under a grandfathering provision in the legislation.
The attorney general's office has been considering a crackdown on pit bulls and bad dog owners since a Toronto man was mauled by two of the dogs in late August.
Bryant has spent the past six weeks examining the issue and consulting experts and victims of attacks about a potential ban.
In that time, several more pit bull attacks have peppered newspaper and broadcast reports across Ontario.
Since announcing the review, Bryant has received thousands of e-mails overwhelmingly in favour of tougher controls on aggressive dogs, including an all-out ban.
The move follows similar local bans brought in by Kitchener, Winnipeg and, last month, Windsor.
Animal control experts from Kitchener and Winnipeg have said the number of dog attacks on people and other dogs have since dropped significantly.
Opponents of a ban, however, say the problem is with bad owners and not certain breeds. Pit bull supporters describe the muscular, iron-jawed pets as extremely friendly with humans unless trained to be otherwise.
Wow... quiet today.. I thought for sure people would be sounding off on their thoughts about the ban...
it's only been 2 hours. and that's BS!!
Are we banning cars next? One of the top human killers in today's society...
That's really sad. There are so many irresponsible dog owners out there. Now the owners who really care for their pets have to suffer... I really think there should be a law where you have to go through specific screening if you are wanting to own a pittbull, dobey or rottweiler---it would weed out the a** holes who want to fight them.
A few bad apples ruined the whole bunch..
It's such an upsetting issue. I get all bent out of shape everytime it comes up :o Down here in the Niagara Region, apparently they have made even stricter laws in regards to pit bulls and other large breed dogs... to the point where if your large breed dog gets out and even if it doesn't come near someone, but someone complains that it is out, it immediately gets put down :(:( :mad::mad: There's already been a few times Mike has come home saying that he's seen the SPCA loading some pitties in to the back of their truck :(
Originally posted by Ptindy
Are we banning cars next? One of the top human killers in today's society...
LOL... funny you mention cars, that's the EXACT comparison I have been using anytime the topic comes up :p There are a lot more 'car attacks' at the hands of 'bad drivers' than the ratio of dog attacks at the hands of 'irresponsible owners', but you don't see anyone trying to ban cars - and you never will, simply because EVERYONE wants a car, not everyone wants or cares to try and understand the dogs.
ChokeOnSmoke
10-15-04, 10:45 AM
what breeds are being banned?
That is deffinatly sad, another case of a few bad apples wrecking it for everyone. But then as herpers don't we know all about that eh, too bad for all the responsible pit owners.
Any dog that is pitbull like..
I just read that in the Toronto Star.
Of course the article was paired up with the sterotypical snarling pitpull image. Though I give credit to <a href="http://www.cbc.ca">CBC</a>, no snarling pitbull picture!
There are strict laws on the already owned pitbulls. But if you let some people keep pitbulls there will always be some that find their way into Ontario. I don't see how this will fix the problem that people don't know how to take care of their pets. There is an all out ban of rats in Alberta and I have seen a couple sites on people that say they drove to BC to acquire theirs.
I think maybe the reason people are quiet is because were all grieving(sp?). Today a thousand silent guns went off, and have hit their marks perfectly, the hearts of every owner of a pitbull. I am now left wondering, after my APBT passes on, what will fill the void in our family? and I'm sure alot of people are gonna agree with me, but my love for this breed is more than my love for this province, and it pains me to say this...But i'm moving! to hell with this government.
thats my vent!
Josh
Kitchener has already banned them and I'm glad. A province-wide ban is what irresponsible pit bull owners need. As for the stricter fines for dog owners whose animals bite, I'm all for it.
Ptindy/Linds: Are you seriously making a comparison between an inanimate CAR and a living creature?! When was the last time a rogue car pulled out of a driveway and struck down a pedestrian? Car's don't kill people, the morons behind the wheel do. Pit bulls KILL poeple and other dogs. Wake up and while your smelling the coffee, read the paper.
gonesnakee
10-15-04, 01:12 PM
mykee I see by your avatar that you obviously like a larger breed dog, I guess you won't mind when the new laws start to affect yourself either & the breed(s) you like or choose to keep? Don't kid yourself it won't be long. No matter what vehicle, animal or whatever there will always be idiots owning them & no # of laws will ever change that no matter what the circumstances. This to me has very little to do with Pitbulls, it has to do with a Govt. deciding to ban things versus taking the nessicary steps to govern/regulate them & overall paranoia as a result of the media. As far as it goes I've only been bit by one pitbull ever, but have been bitten 100s of times by smaller breeds such as poodles, terriers, cocker spaniels, etc. etc. A mentality such as yours will eventually result in an all out ban of all dog species I think you are the one who needs to wake up & smell the coffee. Its all about freedom from oppression IMHO & one ban will eventually lead to many more because its easier to ban than to regulate. Seriously Mark
MouseKilla
10-15-04, 01:22 PM
If dog owners were held as responsible for the actions of their animals under criminal law as they are for their own personal behaviour the jails would be full of guys that wear wife-beaters and have pitbulls and bad tattoos... wouldn't that be strange? lol!
MouseKilla,
LOL.. now that was funny ... LOL :D
gonesnakee
10-15-04, 01:28 PM
What are ya saying that I shouldn't go around walking my Pitbull wearing my Harley wifebeater to show off my forearm/shoulder tattoo of a crappy eagle while my boas hanging around my neck LOL ya some peoples kids just didn't get the attn. they needed from Mom while growing up or are lacking something else? Heh Heh Mark
Vengeance
10-15-04, 01:35 PM
I'm not sure if I am for or against the ban. In some ways it seems like a good idea, in others it doesn't. I'm still on the fence about that. But I have to agree with Mykee on using cars as an example in reference to pit bulls, that is just inane. Main reasons being that A) Cars don't kill people, people kill people, someone has to be behind the wheel of that car in order for an accident to occur. B) The number of drivers in Ontario vs the number of pit-bull owners don't even come close to each other, so how can you compare statistics that don't even come close. I'd guess (lets use a low number) 60% of the Ontario population drives. I doubt even 10% of the population in Ontario owns a pit-bull. But then that is just a guess and not an actual fact. C) Although both cars and dogs in general can kill people a car cannot act without its owner, it doesn't have free will or instinct, it's an inanimate object. A dog is a living breathing thing and can act of its own accord.
Comparing pit bulls to cars is really not a reasonable comparison.
RepTylE
10-15-04, 02:26 PM
Another example of bad owners giving a bad rap to responsibile ones and all pay the price. I am not particularly into pits myself but I have known really nice well behaved ones and few really aggressive ones. The precident of a provincial governmental body imposing an overall ban is very distressing........ what will they go after next??
Originally posted by mykee
Kitchener has already banned them and I'm glad. A province-wide ban is what irresponsible pit bull owners need. As for the stricter fines for dog owners whose animals bite, I'm all for it.
Ptindy/Linds: Are you seriously making a comparison between an inanimate CAR and a living creature?! When was the last time a rogue car pulled out of a driveway and struck down a pedestrian? Car's don't kill people, the morons behind the wheel do. Pit bulls KILL poeple and other dogs. Wake up and while your smelling the coffee, read the paper.
Mykee, I agree with you 110%. Worded very well..
nat_the_brat
10-15-04, 03:24 PM
I have always thought it rather riduculus to ban the animal... they only seem to have high incidence of violence because you only hear about the bad ones. You never hear about the hundreds of well behaved ones. That said I do realize there are higher incidences of certain breeds being violent (that's what they were bred for in the first place so duh) I always thought that the emphasis should be placed on controling the people who own these animals... almost like a liscence so you accept full reasponsibility for the animal.. the " didn't know any better.. the dog has never been mean to mean... or I don't know how he keeps getting out of the yard and harassing people." excuse would be erased. I think its like controling a gun... it has the potential to be lethal and if something should happen to someone or another animal, the person who owns the gun should be blamed.. not the gun for going off. If your gun kills someone you go to jail for murder. I think this should apply to animals to.
I am in favor of the ban thank you very much ..... After all can are cooks tree boas "trained to bite" etc no it's there nature as well as pitbulls THERE JUST SIMPLY NOT A GOOD BREED AND FAR FROM A LOVING HOUSEHOLD PET!!!!.. Thank You very much
ChokeOnSmoke
10-15-04, 03:52 PM
Cookie have you known any personally?
BoAddict
10-15-04, 03:53 PM
why are we on this topic again???
we knew it was coming.
but since we are here i will state my $0.02
any kind of ban is bad , i think if they want to do something productive they need to hold the owners criminally responsible
whats next for the list to get banned soon we will not be able to keep pets period
and dogs dont just go and attack people for no reason its the people that own them that made them attack as they are the ones that raised them, had they done it properly i bet that dog would never attack anyone.
Mike
Leviathan
10-15-04, 04:03 PM
I'm just trying to figure out the mind set of the people who are okay with this ban. You must agree on a good ol' reptile ban also then. Yes, Pitbulls have minds of there own and are able to act on their own accord, but HELLO, so are reptiles smarty pants! The blame lies in the fact that if these dogs were housed and trained properly by there owners (just like reptiles) and were unable to get out were they can hurt someone then there wouldn't be a problem. The reason they are comparing it to cars is because all these problems lie at the 'wheel' of stupid people. In fact, where I live, if an owners dog attacts someone and the owner walks away it is considered a 'Hit and Run'. Just like a hit and run with a car, it's the exact same offence... hmmm... fancy that. LOL!
Whether the dog is raised properly or not, housed properly or not, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, ten years after this 'ban' has effectively been in use (as per the "Grandfather Clause") you won;t be hearing of any more pit bulls eating other dogs and snacking on people, will you? You know why? Because all the pit bulls that were saved by the Grandfather Clause will no longer be around. No pit bulls = no pit bull attacks. Furthermore, "You lnly ever hear about pit bulls attacking, what about all the other large breeds that attack" Of all the dog owners in Ontario, safe to say that 1% of them are pit bull owners (1/1000 people in Ontario assuming that 10% of people own dogs). Why is it that the papers are strewn with stories of pit bulls attacking? Why not dobermanns, sheps or rottis? Of that 1% of ownership, they are clearly accounting for MORE than their fair share of incidents.
"Next it's other large breeds, maybe even your labs, Michael" I' HIGHLY doubt that. Simple fact of the matter is, I don't put my dogs in situations where they have the ability to do harm to a dog, or a human. My dogs are ALWAYS leashed when out of the house, and are warned by ANYONE who comes close to pet my dogs (Read: RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP) Though my dogs would sooner run circles around you or drown you in drool, but regardless of what size dog you have, it comes down to responsible ownership. It's unfortunate that pit bulls have come between the crosshairs, but irresponsible pit bull owners have been given chance after chance, and children and dogs continue to be injured or killed. How many more kids need to be mauled before a ban occurs? Answer: 0. Good on 'em.
Tim and Julie B
10-15-04, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Cookie
I am in favor of the ban thank you very much ..... After all can are cooks tree boas "trained to bite" etc no it's there nature as well as pitbulls THERE JUST SIMPLY NOT A GOOD BREED AND FAR FROM A LOVING HOUSEHOLD PET!!!!.. Thank You very much
That is 100% BS!
I have kept quiet through most of this. They are great dogs. Extremely smart and with that they can be trained either way. Problem is most morons get them because they can be trained to be mean. The aren't even on the top five list in bites. Labs are # 1 how many lab bans do you hear about? (Check with the CKC and AKC if you whant to know some facts.) None why because the media wouldn't get the same attention talking about labs. Rottweiller attacks someone it makes front page but a Rottweiller saving a girl from a fire is a paragraph in the back. Instead of being narrow minded and having people tell you what to think why not research it yourselfs and get the facts. It's amazing that everyone complains about the uneducated public's opinion on reptiles and wanting to ban them. And we bitch and whine. But here you are, doing it about another species. Being the same narrow minded tunnel visioned people you complain about in the first place. Way to go! Next time someone wants to ban your pets out of ignorance at least you will know were they are coming from.
TB
I said it before and i will say it again, BANNing fixes nothing,
People who want a fighting dog will get a fighting dog, and they will still fight them just as they do today.
Dog fighting is already against the law, But strangly enough people still fight them.
Its just like triing to get guns off the street by making hunters register theirs.
When will the government realize that they can not control the bad people buy punishing the good?
Well I for one have researched it (see other pitbull thread) and if the CDC thinks theres a problem with Pitbulls thats good enough for me. You can say anything you want to about how a well behaved Pitbull is a great dog, but the sad fact is that too many people don't have well behaved dogs. There is no way you can regulate who gets them, so the only solution is to ban them entirely. Heck, handguns are perfectly safe in the right hands, problem is they don't end up there so we ban them. Same thing with Pits. Hate it or love it, it's done. No more Pits in Ontario. Say goodnight, the parties over.
Thats just it though!! handguns were banned but people are still getting shot by them.
Handguns kill a minimal amount of people in Canada. In the States, where handguns are free and plentiful, they are a major factor in homicides and accidental shootings. As a matter of fact, you are much, much more likely to have your handgun injure or kill a family member than protect your home.
As I said before, a well trained Pitbull might be a great dog. However you can't insure that the people that get them will train them properly so the only solution is to ban them. If other species can do as much damage as Pitbulls and are as aggressive lets ban them to. Wouldn't bother me in the least.
TB, BS? How about I give you some hard facts! In 2002, there were 214,569 registered Retrievers (Labs, Golden's and Chesapeake's) In that same year, there were 2,842 registered terriers (Amer. Staff. & Bull terrier)
That means that less than ONE HUNDREDTH OF A PERCENT of all dog owners (0.0132% to be exact) of the American dog owning population own a pittbull, (and 1 Pittbull owner for every 100 Retreiver owners) Why so many Pittbull attacks?
Another fact: Center for Disease Control released a study titled, "Breeds most likely to bite" First dog mentioned on the list? PITT BULLS. Of the eight dogs mentioned, Retreivers of ANY kind were absent.
More facts: Same study, stated that that 58% of dog bites occur in the home. When was the last time you heard about a pittbull attacking it's owner? Not very often, and what about that attack happening in his/her own home? Even less often. With all these facts, it only goes to show that pittbulls are attacking INNOCENT people, who are not their owners outside of their own home. To be honest, I would sooner have my babies hand ACCIDENTALLY bit trying to grab one of my Labs toys in my own home, than have him/her PURPOSELY eaten by a pittbull ouside of my home.
mykee
I highly doubt that the majority of pits are registered.
I highly doubt that the majority of Retreivers are registered. Even if you are right, I don't think it'll be argued that the ratio of 100:1 is relatively dead-on.
Furthermore, the Canadian Safety Council states: "Golden and Labrador Retreivers have a reputation for being friendly and good-natured. The high number of bites is because they are very common. The Dutch survey found that for Rottweilers and Bull Terriers, the chances of biting are SIX to SEVEN times higher respectively than for other pedigree breeds." Dutch Survey cited, as no conclusive Canadian survey exists.
gonesnakee
10-15-04, 06:20 PM
mykee I like how you put yourself & the way you care for your dogs up above everyone else. You don't really think that OTHER people MAYBE even those that own PITBULLS train & treat their animals the same? LMAO Oh & the whole handgun thing LOL guess what folks they ARE NOT banned. They are RESTRICTED & LICENSED big difference from BANNED. Futhermore Canada has one of the highest # of guns per capita of any country in the world, much higher than say the US, so we actually have more weapons per person than they do down south. Therefore more guns does not equal more gun related deaths (we aren't sure why exactly LOL). Futhermore whether people realize it or not many gangs etc. have taken to keeping/breeding pitbulls & use them not only for dog fighting but to guard crack & grow houses & also to assault other individuals intentionally. They can walk right by the cops with 2 or 3 of them on a leash & as long as they are leashed & licensed no worries. Can't pack a handgun & shoot someone because that can land them in jail. They sure don't hesitate to sic their dogs on you though. Why? because they are disposable to them for one & also they can't be held responsible criminally because it is so hard to prove. Sad but true some scum are using them as an alternative to shooting or stabbing others. Send the dogs in first they are expendable. Heck its been happening since the beginning of time people. In the beginning all dogs were used for work or war & protection. So ya get rid of all the Pitbulls OK now the scum breeding them for fighting & assaulting go to the next breed, maybe Dobbies or Rotties, heck maybe even Shepards or Mastiffs. Do you think by banning Pitbulls you have accomplished anything? NO People are still going to keep & breed them whether their purpose is for pets or otherwise & those who choose otherwise will find something new, its a given. What about all the crossbreeds? What do they do there? How do they prove it doesn't have (or has) Pitbull in it? The meanest dog I ever tangled with was a Pitbull/Rotti/Mastiff cross bred that way intentionally & trained to be mean from day one. A lethal injection cured that problem, too bad it was the dog & not the owner! I personally think that crosses are more unstable than any purebred pit. I definitely agree something has to be done to regulate all breeds of large dogs, but an all out ban on anything is WRONG WRONG WRONG They should consider banning people from breeding without some kind of guidelines etc. before they worry about the animals they own. Ah to live in a perfect world, not ever going to happen folks no matter what ya ban, maybe we should try to ban the internet as it is used criminally everyday also, but that would be silly now wouldn't it. No more silly than banning a breed of dog. Just a few thoughts... Mark
Invictus
10-15-04, 06:24 PM
Ok, I'm going to jump in here, but I'll try to keep my cool. :D
Mykee's statistics are true and irrefutable. Pit bulls have been bred for thousands of years to be attack dogs, plain and simple. We as pet owners cannot just suddenly undo thousands of years of selective breeding, and it's irresponsible and frankly foolish to think that you can. I'm sick to death of the dog owners being blamed, especially because I've known some of the most responsible, knowledgeable pit bull owners on earth, and they still ended up getting their pit put down after it attacked a neighborhood kid. They are a vicious breed, a ticking time bomb, and anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly fooling themselves. Remember, thousands of years of breeding for agression. Go ahead and try to undo that.
THAT BEING SAID, I think a province-wide ban is just opening the door for more bans, and I, being a FIERCE opponent of reptile bans, would be a huge fricken hypocrite if I said that I supported this ban. I'm absolutely enraged about the ban on burmese pythons in alberta, just because they are giants. I completely support alberta banning retics, afrocks, and all venomous species however, so maybe I'm not a hypocrite by saying that if the species is genuinely dangerous (as I believe pits and rotties are), maybe it should be banned.
I was attacked by a rottweiler once. The owner was walking it down the street as I suspect he did regularly. Well, for some reason, this day, the rottie decided to be vicious, and the owner was powerless to stop it. Luckily, I reacted to the dog jumping at me, snarling and barking the whole way, and damn near caved in the little b*stard's chest. I regret nothing. It attacked me for NO REASON. Was the owner irresponsible? Who knows. But the bottom line is, he was powerless. The dog overpowered him and he lost the leash.
I didn't support a ban on rottweilers then, and I'm not sure I support a ban on pits now. But by the same token, I'm not necessarily against it. (Gotta love fence walkers!) The stats Mykee spelled out here speak for themselves - pits are WAY more likely to attack than ANY other dog. Regulation has failed. Maybe a ban is the solution.
crucified
10-15-04, 07:08 PM
i think if you ban one breed you ban them all..
hell ban all reptiles...
actually just ban pets in general..
enough said..
it will end up that way anyways..
i think there should be a ban on those "toy" dogs.. they ALWAYS bite people.. regardless how well behaved they are..
MouseKilla
10-15-04, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Invictus
I'm sick to death of the dog owners being blamed, especially because I've known some of the most responsible, knowledgeable pit bull owners on earth, and they still ended up getting their pit put down after it attacked a neighborhood kid.
LOL! How can they be responsible and knowledgable and not take the necessary steps to prevent THEIR OWN DOG from attacking someone? Muzzle it, keep it in your own yard or lock it in your basement if you have to, if you choose to own it everything it does is YOUR responsibility!
Originally posted by Invictus
They are a vicious breed, a ticking time bomb, and anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly fooling themselves. Remember, thousands of years of breeding for agression. Go ahead and try to undo that...
Which is why the owners have no excuse for not protecting the public from their dog, it's their dog and they should know what it is capable of and how to prevent others from being harmed by it. I see it the same way for boas, burms, retics and hots, if you have them it's up to you to protect everyone else from being endangered by them.
Originally posted by Invictus
It attacked me for NO REASON. Was the owner irresponsible? Who knows. But the bottom line is, he was powerless. The dog overpowered him and he lost the leash.
So yeah, the owner was most definitely irresponsible in allowing HIS dog to get away from him resulting in the attack on you. If he can't control the dog then he shouldn't have it around anyone else.
Banning any animal is stupid but holding owners responsible, criminally, for the actions of their animals is only logical. A violent act committed by your dog is a violent act committed by you, simple as that. Banning and killing dogs won't work, charging stupid dog owners with assault when their dog hurts someone will.
BoAddict
10-15-04, 07:55 PM
mykee what makes you so much better than the rest
outta all the reported pit bull attacks how many are followed up by photo's of the dogs? id say that more than half of those attacks are not even pits. john q public is so ignorant its so simple to just lable something as vicious.
as it has been stated there are much more vicious dogs out there that need to be banned if this is the case.
next to be banned will be rotties , dobs , and sheppards.
Okay... My turn to chime in... ill try to stay calm :)
I talk from PERSONAL experience...
A neighbour of ours ... a GOOD responsible family man, had a pitbull / lab mix... This guy was responsible.. took the dog to obedience school from day one...
Everything seemed fine.. the dog was friendly to me... even walked it many times...
One day.. the dog charged out of the front door as their daughter was opening it, literally pushed her out of the way and ran past her... guess what??? The damn thing charged right at an innocent person walking down the street... ME...
It attacked me, grabbed onto my arm and would not let go, this attack was completely unprovoked...
I ended up getting the dog off me by kicking it many times.. but not before it did some SERIOUS damage to my arms and hands...
I was put in hospital because of the attack... my arms were so badly bruised and chewed up... I spent 2 months on painkillers and my arms wrapped in bandages....
Wanna know something? This dog could not be stopped when it snapped... its owner was trying...
Later in the week, after the attack, I went with the neighbour to a place that specialized in assessing aggressive dogs... his conclusion.. this dog had one bad attitude under the right circumstances and in his opinion would always be a danger... This after the dog did the whole obedience school....
Later that day, the dog was destroyed.
SO... GET OFF IT LADIES AND GENTS...
Dont say there are no bad dogs.. only bad owners...
DOGS can be bad.... THEY CAN ATTACK on their own accord...
Case in point... My own experience...
Even when their owners have the best intentions...
They are a living being that is capable of making choices...
Sure all dogs can attack, but if that dog has the power to do serious damage... well.. you know the outcome...
What if instead of me... that dog decided to take on a 7 year old kid??? Jesus... Get with it... peoples rights to safety come first... No neighbourhood should have animals like that...
Also note.. the ban is going to cover ANY large agressive dog breed... check it out for yourself...
They are talking about the ability for them to ban dogs that snarle and snap at people that walk up to your door...
And GOOD ON EM FOR FINALLY DOING SOMETHING RIGHT!
MouseKilla
10-15-04, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Shad0w
One day.. the dog charged out of the front door as their daughter was opening it, literally pushed her out of the way and ran past her... guess what??? The damn thing charged right at an innocent person walking down the street... ME...
Wanna know something? This dog could not be stopped when it snapped... its owner was trying...
Dont say there are no bad dogs.. only bad owners...
DOGS can be bad.... THEY CAN ATTACK on their own accord...
Even when their owners have the best intentions...
They are a living being that is capable of making choices...
Good intentions aren't good enough, owners have to take steps to prevent the animal from doing this sort of thing. In this case the owner failed to contain the dog and is therefore completely at fault for his dog biting you no matter what. After they put the dog down they should have charged the owner criminally, as far as I'm concerned it's as good as assault or criminal negligence.
On top of that you would be in a position to sue the owner in civil court for damages arising from an incident in which he was negligent.
Tim and Julie B
10-15-04, 08:23 PM
AGGRESSISION IS NOT A GENETIC TRAIT WHICH CAN BE BRED INTO ANY LIVING THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All dogs must be taught to be mean. This holds true for ALL breeds. So if you agree that "pit bull terriers" should be banned then ALL breeds should be banned. I too researched the heck out of this all, and while Mykee makes some interesting points, they are incomplete-most of the studies you refer to are based on very small tallies. Yes, I read every page that you've gotten your information from:D In order for any of this crap to be valid, ALL of Canada would have to become a test subject. ALL dogs would have to be registered and tatooed, and ALL bites and other attacks would have to be reported. C'mon people, how often do people report bites from thier own dogs or cute little yappy fuzz balls???? Think this through just a couple more steps. If we agree to allow the government to ban specific breeds, then all large dogs are at risk. After that they will move on to out reptiles and so on. The buck DOES NOT stop here.
Also, for those of you who think the breed specific ban is okay, but have never owned a STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER then what right do you have to make any decision on this? Yes, I know, freedom of speech (I am exercising mine, don't forget), but honestly, you're shooting in the dark at a target you know nothing about.
Blame owners, YES. Blame bad dogs, YES. But for the love of God why punish an entire breed. It's racism, plain and simple. Any who support it are racist in my eyes and not worth the time of day to me.
Julie:D
Invictus
10-15-04, 08:33 PM
Julie, you're dead wrong if you think agression cannot be bred for. There have been TONS of studies with ALL facets of animals that show you can in fact breed for temperament. How do you explain how domesticated certain reptiles have become? Do you think it has always been that way? HELL NO. The first WC burms in the hobby were absolute terrors. Now they are the most docile creatures on earth. You think a WC boa tolerates handling? I think not. Down in the states, people are even proving with African Rock pythons that if you hold back the calmer ones and keep breeding that way, all of the babies end up calm. Same has been done with blood pythons, Macklotts pythons, and even white lipped pythons, natures own shredding machines. Now imagine instead of breeding 3 or 4 generations of calm pythons (which is all it takes in reptiles, but they are a MUCH more primitive species), you breed 100 generations of the most vicious, temperamental, savage beasts you can get your hands on. THAT is what pit bulls are now. A few generations of selective breeding to try and undo thousands of years of selective breeding. It would be the same with reptiles 1000 years from now.... good luck even TRYING to breed the calmness out of a long line of calm reptiles. It could take hundreds of years to undo what countless generations before you did.
Tim and Julie B
10-15-04, 08:35 PM
ANY dog can attack. Put the dog down, not the ENTIRE breed. Sometimes, I think people are just being selfish and biased, and that's what this comes down to. A bunch of people whining about something they dislike, without any enducation about it at all. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why so many are hesitant to think this through, since most people don't care for big dogs. Fear drives humans too, but we should at least use our heads to come up with a solution to the real problem. Not jump the gun and make childish regulations.
Julie
Tim and Julie B
10-15-04, 08:42 PM
Aggression with most animals is learned. Yes some are more aggressive than others by nature, but it's not genetics that makes them this way. To say that is to say that serial killers and other criminals are jsut simply born that way due to bad genetics. C'mon, that would be a load of crap. No one would ever buy into that. It's not plausible.
Destoy bad dogs, or fine the owners, whatever!! But why on earth ban the WHOLE breed?
Julie
BoAddict: Where did I mention or reference me being better than anyone? Get your head outta your a....I use my dogs as 'devils advocates' becaue they're both Labs, and febble-minded individuals continuously attack Labs as an opposition to pittbulls. Stoopid comparison, I know but hey, that's their prerogative. I'm bringing irrefutable facts to the table, as a few others are, commendably I might add, not opinion or biased views.
Julie: So, we should do something about an individual "bad" dog AFTER it eats a baby? Brilliant thinking!
Point is, we can argue this point until we're all blue in the face, FACT remains the province is stepping up to the plate, and though skewed, I'm pleased action is being taken.
Vengeance
10-15-04, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Tim and Julie B
C'mon people, how often do people report bites from thier own dogs or cute little yappy fuzz balls????
You most likely don't hear about it because the damage caused isn't severe enough to warrant public knowledge. Personally I'd take the bite of a cute little fuzz ball over that of a pitbull anyday. Sure there may be many more reports of other breeds of dogs and the attacks that happen. But mabye the reason we don't hear about it is because the attacks arn't as devistating as that of a pit bull attack. I don't have any numbers to support anything but if anyone can find them that be great, but how many other breeds of dogs have killed as many people as pit bulls? A death will allways hit the news and allways has to be reported so I can assume that their has to be accurate information somewhere about it. To me that would be an interesting comparision. But here are some interesting facts, old and unreleated to my above point but interesting none the less.
The most recently published statistics are from 1994. Other statistical sources provide estimates of dog-related injuries.
In 2001, an estimated 68 million dogs were pets in the United States.
In 2001, an estimated 368,245 victims were treated for dog bite related injuries.
In 2001, children ages 5-9 had the highest dog-related injuries.
In 2001, an estimated 42% of dog bites (or 154,625) occurred in children age 14 and younger.
Approximately 7.9% of dog bites (or 16,476) were work-related.
Dog bite injury sites for all victims include:
45.3% to the arm/hand
25.8% to the leg/foot
22.8% to the head/neck.
For children 4 years and under, 64.9% of injuries were to the head/neck.
For those 15 and older, 86.2% of injuries from dog attacks were to the extremities.
Types of dog-related injuries recorded in Emergency Rooms:
26.4% as "dog bite"
40.2% as "puncture"
24.7% as "laceration"
6.0% as "contusion/abrasion/hematoma
1.5% as "cellulitis/infection"
0.8% as "amputation/avulsion/crush"
0.4% as "fracture/dislocation"
From 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 human dog-bite related deaths in the United States. Most of the victims were children.
In 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died as a result of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997, and 9 in 1998). Of these, 19 were young children between zero and 11 years of age, and 8 were older children and adults between 17 and 87 years of age.
Of the 27 people who died as a result of dog bite attacks in 1997 and 1998, 67 percent (18) involved unrestrained dogs on the owner's property; 19 percent (5) involved unrestrained dogs off the owner's property; 11 percent (3) involved restrained dogs on the owner's property; and 4 percent (1) involved a restrained dog off the owner's property.
60 percent of the fatal dog bite attacks by unrestrained dogs that occurred off the owner's property in 1997 and 1998 involved attacks by more than one dog.
Of the 27 people who died as a result of dog bite attacks during 1997 and 1998, 67 percent (18) involved an attack by one dog; 19 percent (5) involved an attack by two dogs; and 15 percent (4) involved an attack by 3 dogs.
17 states accounted for the 27 dog bite fatalities that occurred in 1997 and 1998. They were: California (4 deaths); Georgia and North Carolina (3 deaths each); Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin (2 deaths each); and Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South Dakota, and Tennessee (1 death each).
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.
Between 1979 and 1998, 58 percent of human deaths involved attacks by unrestrained dogs who were on their owner's property at the time of the attack.
It has been estimated that about 4.5 million people (nearly 2 percent of the American population) are bitten by dogs each year.
In 1994, of the estimated 4.7 million people who were bitten by dogs, 800,000 sought medical care. Of these, 332,000 sought treatment in emergency rooms, and 6,000 were hospitalized.
It has been estimated that nearly 334,000 dog bite injuries are treated in emergency departments each year.
Of those hospitalized for dog bite injuries in 1994, 55 percent were male.
The average hospital stay for a dog-bite injury has been estimated at 3.6 days.
In 1994, hospital charges for dog-bite victims was estimated at $62.5 million.
In 1994, emergency department charges for dog-bite victims was estimated at $102.4 million, and direct medical care charges incurred as a result of dog bites was estimated at $164.9 million.
Statistical Sources: Nonfatal Dog Bite-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments - United States, 2001. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm. Vet Med Today: Special Report, Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 (JAVMA, Vol. 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Dog-Bite-related Fatalities - United States, 1995-1996 (MMWR, Vol. 46/No. 21, May 30, 1997).
I wouldn't mind seeing Rottweillers banned as well. There are some breeds that no longer have a place in society today.
Ok i'm just gonna chime in here one last time, and pose a question to all you yuppies who think these dogs are so bloody agressive...
Recently here in ottawa as a matter of fact, Police were investigating the replacement of their German shepards for a breed that would surpass them for, agility, endurance, and intellignece, of all the dogs selected, screened and crossed off the list, they were left with but one breed, The american pitbull terrier, however later on, a vote was passed to keep their existing breed of german shepards for one, reason and one reason alone, of the 100 pittbulls trained all 100 passed the testing required except for one small part....all 100 refused to bite human, wich was required by their dogs, in order to take down, potentially harmful criminals.
now aint that somthing? all 100 refused to attack? wonder why that was? OH RIGHT I KNOW! because this breed was selectively bred to not be agressive towards humans, right from day one, starting back in the 1800's!!! but all you hate mongerers must be right!!! But alas, Invictus, and so many other Intelligent people have already stated, if you support this ban, you might aswell support a reptile ban, the problem is not with the breed, but with the backyard breeders who are intermixing this species up and creating HYBRIDS! and well know how much Hybrids are frowned upon in the herp community, but do we ban them? or destroy them? do i have the right to tell you, your not allowed to own a HOT snake? even if you take all the proper percautions? no i dont, so get off whatever pedastool your standing on, thinking your better then the rest, because your a speacial case and grow up! NOBODY has the right to take away MY freedom to own this beautiful Breed!
crucified
10-15-04, 10:39 PM
well said kimo..
and as for your comment RFB about banning rottweillers because they have no need in society today..
there are alot of dogs that have no need then..
what the hell do we need a shih tzu for? or a poodle? a pekenese? maybe cuz rottweillers are pretty high up on human affection and companion.. like pit bulls are...
its just the backyard breeders with their inbreed dogs or trying to mix a bit more mastiff or terrier into the genepool and just messing it up..
there should be no reason to ban a breed cuz its not "needed" in society..
like i said.. ban anyone from owning pets if you're gonna pick on one breed.. because eventually everything will be banned then..
gonesnakee
10-15-04, 10:40 PM
As stated it's not about Pitbulls, its about freedom from oppression. Those of you who think its OK to lose your rights & freedoms because someone else knows whats best for you, had best be contempt when you have none left. I won't. Mark
crucified
10-15-04, 10:43 PM
well stated mark..
Reptiles are next.
That's really all I can say. Anyone who is for a ban on any animal cannot possible miss the connection this will have later for reptiles.
I hope you are all getting ready...ANY DAY NOW a burmese could "hurt" someone, and guess what? We banned Pits and everyone was in favor of that, we are now banning snake keeping.
Marisa
I'm getting sick and tired of all these children mentioning that when you allow for a breed of dog to be banned, that maybe all reptiles should be banned too. Let's straighten this out once and for all: A reptile is kept indoors and rarely if ever let outside, in this case, most anyone a reptile is going to injure is their own stoopid owners, not an unsuspecting passerby, a child playing in the street, or a dog being walked on the sidewalk. A dog, you catch my drift....
Kimo; I would LOVE to see some hard fact to your fairy tale that you weave. Are you sure you didn't misread Basset hound for Pittbull?
I never ever said anyone would let a reptile outside. Ever.
In fact, it's obvious that's not what I was implying.
The minute you allow the goverment to do one thing with animal ownership with one species, the minute something "scary" happens with another, it's all the more easy to take the same easy way out.
And we can mention whatever we wish on a public forum. Come on. We all know its FOR discussion. That;s why you even opened the thread up. You didn't click on it hoping to see "Wow this is wonderful...everyone is great and we all agree" You clicked on it to battle your opinions out just like we did.
Marisa
Cummon now..,,
How often do you see a burmese charging down the streets after neighbourhood kids?? :P
LOL
BTW... Burmese are already banned in toronto and quite a bit of the surrounding area :) (laws against snakes over a certain length)
Hey,
Im not bashing the responsible owners / breeders.. but how does one police it when there are SO many bad apples in the bunch? easier to ban..
BTW.. the govt already says U cant own things like wolf's, tigers.. etc... yet u dont see them trying to take away house cats or other harmless dogs...
How many of you pitbull fans have actually been involved in an attack / mauling or witnessed one??
If you have not.. then I dont think you really know what yer talking about....
Ive been there.. and done that... And I dont wish it on ANYONE
"but how does one police it when there are SO many bad apples in the bunch? easier to ban.."
Same thing they say about reptiles. How can one police all the bad burmese owners/retic owners/hot owners? Easier to ban. That's exactly why they are not allowed in Toronto. Because someone originally brought the species to the attention of the local government by being a jackass and so on. That's how it always works. Now people who are actually capable and willing to adopt burmese and care for them properly in toronto city limits, cannot. Because of someone else. Just like Pit Bulls.
Marisa
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/October2004/15/c0895.html
~Suntiger~
10-15-04, 11:18 PM
Back to the bit about "news stories strewn with pitbull attacks"...ever think that it's because that's what whoever owns the paper/TV station wants you to hear? or that it's what people want to read/hear about? Which paper would you buy, the one that features a story with a happy ending on the cover, or the one with the blood and gore?
There is an inherent difference marisa... I dont see many burmese walking down the streets....
I do however see far too many dog owners without their dogs on leashes....
Just two weeks ago I posted on this board that I had saw a gent walking down sherbourne in toronto with a pitbull... off leash allowing the dog to chase down squirrels....
That dog could in any second charge down someones kid and tear him/her apart...
Thats just not going to happen with a burmese....
There is no inherent risk to the public because the snakes are not in public places...
You want a pitbull?? fine.. but dont take it out in the public... keep it in the basement of your house.. just like u do a burm :)
I want to know what you people think will happen when another breed of dog bites someone next summer.
You think it's ok to ban that breed next, or not?
Marisa
Marisa,
The govt already said.. they are going after all "dangerous agressive breeds"
That means if you have a shepp that has a habit of trying to take a chunk out of the neighbourhood kids... you could very well lose that dog...
Believe me.. I know what yer saying.. and I feel for the responsible owners... I really do... but dog owners did this to themselves.... well a few bad apples did
Wow this topic sure brings out allot of emotion in people...(totally understandable as Im sure you guys are fighting for your companion animals)
Yeah THAT dog.
They are BANNING pit bulls. But if a few shepherds attack someone next summer, they owners will be punished but that breed won't be banneD? Why? Where does it start and stop?
Marisa
They also talked about slamming breeders too... bringing in some sort of control... which is wise... there are many good things they braught up... that I think will help the dog community in a whole...
Breeding needs to be controlled... and unless you are a licenced breeder... your dog should be "fixed"
It would stop the back yard breeders from screwing up the breeds for profit
The bottom line for me is this. I have a small but aggresive breed of dog. And frankly the only reason she cannot kill someone is because of her small size.
But if they were to say my dog is being banned because of a death, but another breed is not when that breed has also killed, I would be PISSED. And I see it as 100% unfair, biased and a "easy clean" for the government.
Bring on the rules!
Marisa
Sure its an easy fix... to retrain people, which I think would be impossible... is too hard and complicated...
I know where yer comming from... I just know what I went through when I was attacked by a large pit mix... and like I said.. I sure would not wish that on anyone... Now a small dog.. meh... no biggie.. so it breaks some skin... at least its not going to rip out my throat :)
Mykee...No relation? are you blind buddy? does everyone here remember a certain story not to long ago, about someone keeping a large burmese in their bathroom, and it escaped, and was missing for two weeks, and they found it in the attic of the apartment building??? what if that snake was out cruising the hallways, when someones lil 2 year old child was out playing, make no mistake a 15 ft snake, would make short work of a 2 year old, even a 10 year old, may not be able to eat it, but sure as hell can kill em, how many other horror stories has this community heard about escaped snakes? and you think this isnt the same????? you have got to be so dence! to think it's not the same!!! and we are all so quick to condemn them for not taking proper care of their snakes, but we wont support a reptile ban will we??? man, open your eyes, and see the relation here, your jumping down the throats of owners like me, who keep our dogs responsibly, your acting the same way uneducated people act about reptiles...pfft and you say theres no relation, what a joke!
Josh
Heres a pic of everyones most feared monster, he's the one on the left, his name is Havoc, and he's a PURE BRED AMERICAN PITBULL TERRIER!!!! the one on the left, is a boxer mix, but just as speacial!!! now...everyone notice the size of him? he's 2 years old and pretty much done growing, he's about the size of a beagel...pretty pathetic eh? and your all afraid of him? i'd be more afraid of a freaking lab, or great dane, hell even a mastiff, no wait a sec, im more afraid of a chihuaha they have razor sharp teeth like a cat!! ouchy! LOL oh, and for those of you who are thinking to bring up the locking jaw thing? it's a myth! no dog has a locking jaw, they just have strong jaws, thats it, but this guy, yeah barely fits around your arm! and that my friends, is what a real "game" bred pittbull looks like SMALL and SLEEK a real monster if you ask me!
http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/3646BigBadPitty-med.jpg
RepTylE
10-16-04, 12:48 AM
This has been a hot topic to be sure. I don't agree with bans at all be it guns, dogs, reptiles or cigarettes. Freedom is taken away one morsel at a time not in huge bites. Bans should be decided by the people by vote. If there is a regional issue about banning something put it on a ballot during municipal elections and let the people decide. The provincal government has no business in the issue in the first place. in my opinion.
If anything the provincial government should ban special interest groups trying to lobby their interests and concerns and bypassing the democratic process.
Kimo, what if, what if, what if! What if that burmese sprouted legs and started doing the can-can through the hallway!? Didn't happen. Simple. Pittbulls ARE eating kids and other dogs. Did happen. Simple.
By the way, I'm only "jumping down the throats" of irresponsible dog owners, why do you feel the need to jump on that grenade? Also, nice looking pittbull. HAVOC was it? Exactly my point. FYI, my LABS, (that you'd be so afraid of) are named Willow and Kayla. No testosterone running through those names. Real killers though. Twice the size of your dogs; 85 & 88 pounds respectively. Size means nothing. I would never be anywhere near as fearful around an ill-tempered Wolfhound as I would around a pitti.
Just for the hell of it, my two killers:
http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/1004Dogsoncouch3-med.JPG
Sad for sure.
I think that bannes affect everyone wether you think so or not, just another bit of our freedom taken away. If you think that our hobby of keeping reptiles isn't going to be affected one day like this, think again. There are a hell of alot of people out there who would love to see snakes banned just like they already are in some communities. Just like how pitbulls started being banned from community to community. To alot of people a snake is a snake and the only way to limit people with snakes is to ban all snakes. I can see this happening with alot of exotics.
Someone also posted that aggresion has been bred into them for thousands of years. I am not going to touch the topic of aggresion being bred into them, I know what they have been bred for and how they have been bred and from everything I have read it is no thousands of years but maybe a couple hundred. This ban is going to cause some breeders to do it underground and force people who really want them to aquire them illegally.
Mykee, from what I read it sounds like you think your labs are almighty but there are also some bad labs. Labs are one of the dogs I have been bit by a couple of times and the bites drew blood everytime. Earlier this year my 2 year old niece was bit by their so called freindly golden lab which was a great family pet for many years. It drew blood and caused alot bruising. Two weeks later the family asked me to put their dog down for them cause it could not be trusted anymore. If it was my dog it wouldn't even of had the luxury of those too weeks. I have no use for dogs that bite, pitbull, lab or shitzu. Anyways any large dog has potential of doing harm and now that the pitbull won't be in Ontario (legally anyways) 20 years down the road what dog do you think people will train to guard or for whatever reason they need it for. I think any big dog is going to be game and that is because this ban just targeted dogs and not owners and in no way is trying to produce good owners, which is going to lead to the more popular breeds being used cause there are going to be no more so called aggresive dog breeds.
Well another ban and more restrictions, I think Russia is looking like a pretty good place to move too.
Todd
Vengeance
10-16-04, 06:27 AM
I don't see the corralation between baning pitbulls and baning reptiles. Is there even one documented case of a captive reptile attack on the genereal public in the province of Ontario? How about a death caused by Captive reptile in all of Ontario to the general public? I don't think I've ever heard or seen one. So I don't see how you can compare one to the other, their are documented cases of dog related deaths in Ontario, I think as far as the politicans are concerend they are trying to protect the general public. But then again I like this fence that I sit on because I don't like having freedoms taking away. But I think the goverment would be hard pressed to take away a reptile ownership without some related attacks in Ontario. I'm sure people are going to argue "it on takes one attack" but I find that hard to beleive as well. This action was only taken after numrous attacks, not just one. So there would have to be quite a rash of reptile related attacks in a short span of time in order for something like this ban to come about.
RepTylE
10-16-04, 07:22 AM
The point is not if reptiles have been documented as attacking people or injuring anyone. You can't argue away the fact that a great many people have an almost instinctive aversion to reptiles. The ban could occur just as much from distaste as it couild from an actual incident where someone is injured. You walk down the street in the height of summer with a ten foot burn slung over your shoulders and see what happens....if it made the papers then it would be a 18 ft burmese and stories about that species being capable of killing a grown man.
Tell me I'm wrong.
chailatte
10-16-04, 07:55 AM
Pit bull attacks are a bunch of media hype. If a dog attacks someone, its a "pit bull attack", regardless of the actual breed. I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find a registered American Staffordshire Terrier that attacked anyone. The kind of losers that think its cool to have a mean dog generally have big ugly mutts they brag are Pit Bulls. I have had four pit bulls and they have been the most laid-back, congenial animals I've ever had. There were two that literally never growled( even when playing tug-of-war with chew toys) in their entire lives. The kids could sit on them, pull their tails, whatever, and they stayed happy as could be. Now Chows, those are mean vicious animals that should be banned. And of course, all venomous snakes should be banned, that goes without saying. And definitely ban collection of any wild animals.
Artemis
10-16-04, 08:49 AM
AGAIN WITH THIS DEBATE??? COME ON PEOPLE! im getting bored here.
concept3
10-16-04, 10:07 AM
What I dont understand Is everyone on this site accepts the fact that if you own snakes you will eventually be bitten. If you own any animal(s) long enuff you will be bitten. I do not own a pitbull nor do I have any intrest in owning one but I honestly feel for the people that do. Pure bread pitbulls are used for so many things like seeing eye dogs to search and rescue. The media labels many things as bad/ unacceptable and most people read/see it and fallow like sheep. I own a minature pom, very aggresive dogs who would bite anyone if they walked up and touched the owner, but since they are to small to inflict any real damage (mine weighs 4.5 pounds) its not a big deal. Yes It is important to protect people and If banning pitbulls is the olny way to keep them out of irresponsible peoples hands I geuss that is what needs to be done.
I just feel bad for the people that own or want to own pit bulls. Dogs are really mans best friend. To anyone here that owns a dog which probably most of us do, what would we think If our dogs were banned>? We would be upset of course. It just blows my mind that a few poor/careless owners can decide the fate of a whole breed of dogs. Its sad. I just had to throw in my third person point of view because it really doesnt affect me but it really is sad.
If you dont remember anything I wrote but this, Just remember your dog, I dont care what breed, Is the olny living thing that would never stab you in the back. Your dog would deffend you and die for you. They are such amazingly loyal creatures, yes even pits. Im sorry for rambling but I just feel so deaply for the people that are affected by this. My dog is my buddy and I would do anything for her and I just hope no one loses their buddy because of this ban.
Hey Artemis,
If you're bored, don't participate. And as far as the whole issue of whether Pitbulls should or should not be banned, I have bad news for you guys. Turn out the lights, the parties over. Society in the form of our government has spoken and Pitbulls are gone. LOOOONG gone. Love it or hate it, goods idea or bad, it's already happened. An aggressive breed that people kept because they liked the macho image that it conveyed is now no longer available and that, in my book, is a good thing. NaNaNaNa NaNanaNa, hey hey hey, goodbye.
spidergecko
10-16-04, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by concept3
If you dont remember anything I wrote but this, Just remember your dog, I dont care what breed, Is the olny living thing that would never stab you in the back. Your dog would deffend you and die for you. They are such amazingly loyal creatures, yes even pits. Im sorry for rambling but I just feel so deaply for the people that are affected by this. My dog is my buddy and I would do anything for her and I just hope no one loses their buddy because of this ban.
People aren't losing their dogs. They just aren't allowed to have more of that breed. I think there would be more sympathy from the pro-banners if people were actually losing their companions.
Invictus
10-16-04, 12:56 PM
Funny how the only people who don't believe that pitbulls are ticking time bombs are the onwers who haven't been bitten YET.
And you can say that snakes are just as dangeorous all you bloody well want... my snakes aren't out mauling neightborhood kids. If pitbull bites were limited to their owners, there wouldn't be an issue. It would be a "well, you chose to own it, suck it up, Princess".
Another thing that is not being looked at here despite everyone's feeble attempts to blame the media is the TYPE of bites that occur. If a lab bites you, you'll need a band aid for your boo boo. If a bit bull bites, you need reconstructive fricken surgery. Once they bite, they tear, shred, and don't let go. And this is in almost every case too, ergo, pit bulls are WAY more dangerous. End of story.
gonesnakee
10-16-04, 01:45 PM
Something that hasn't been metnioned & is relevant is the whole skull/brain thing. I don't know where I orginally read this or how much truth their is to it, but here goes anyway. Apparrently as Pitbulls grow with age the cavitity inside their head allotted for the brain slowly becomes too small for the brain itself & starts to slowly put pressure on it as the dog ages. This is something that supposedly becomes a problem as the animal hits approx. 8 years old. Apparrently they relate this "problem" with them just "snapping" one day. A fellow I used to know that bred them (around 20 years ago) told me about this also & it had become his policy to euthanize them once they hit 8 or 9 because he felt at that time they could no longer be trusted & might snap due to the pressure on their brain. Anyone else hear of this or have some scientific proof or logic to back this up? Another thing is the jaw strength. Don't kid yourselves folks hese guys can & will lock their jaws. I had friends that used to play with theirs with spare tires. The dogs would lock on to the tire & you could swing them around in the air as hard & as fast as you wanted & they would not release their grip no matter what. I'm talking a 300 lb man swinging adult pitbulls around as hard & fast as he could & there was no way they would let go, unless he told them too release. The dogs used to love it for those of you who may think that such an activity was abusive in any way. The one had to be put down once she hit 8 years old as she was a gentle giant that did indeed one day did snap & could no longer be trusted as her behaviour grew more & more aggressive as she aged, back to what I said above. Don't get me wrong I still don't & will never support such bans, but mind you I think it a crime to keep any large breed dog in a city also. Thats why I don't own any. Even though I have a large fenced yard etc. I am firm in that only small breeds should be kept in cities & towns. Large breeds should be on acerages, farms & ranches. I hate to say it but if a ban was to be in effect it should be limited to City & town bylaws, with a grandfather clause of course, but not an all out provincial ban (still WRONG, WRONG, WRONG) This basic rule would prevent all the backyard yahoos in the cities etc. & such animals would only be kept properly where they belong in a proper enviroment. Regualtion requiring a special permit to keep certain breeds within town/city limits could even be considered, so those who are worthy could still rightfully own their pets despite all the BS. For those who feel so hard done by because they have been attacked, well sorry for ya, but I too have had my fair share of dogbites & have had Dobbies, Rotties, Pits, Shepards etc. attack me plenty, but I never blame the dogs its always been due to the neglect or intention of the owners, not the dogs. So WAHHH I did what I had to to the animal to end the attack & then went after the owners, not the dogs. I hate to help fuel the fire for some of you, but I for one am openminded & am willing to look at this from all points of view. I'd hate to ever become being as narrowminded & biased as some of the others that have posted here. I too can be a hypocrit but I'll admit to it (always grey areas no matter what topic IMO), whereas some other peoples kids well... just have to laugh, can't beat them, that'd be wrong? LOL Mark
Im with Inviticus on this. Pit bulls have extremely powerful jaws and it is a dangerous animal. Attacks by pitbulls are deadly in many cases. Even rottweilers are dangerous and too strong for many owners to control. I saw a Rottie break a thick metal chain that was being used to tie it to a post as it ran after a man walking down my street. The owner of the dog was a pretty big guy and was basically dragged by the dog as he grabbed the broken chain to try and stop it from getting to the man walking the street.
Just last week I was walking from my car to my office and a man was there with his german shepard. The dog all of a sudden came charging to me. I was just about to punch it in the head when the owner got it to stop. I saw the dog was muzzled. Now what if the dog was not muzzled and I was a child?
Im a father and if protecting my daughter from getting killed by a lethal dog steps over someones rights to keep any dog they wish then so be it. I couldnt care less.
With statistics as they are I think there should be many more rules and regulations to keeping dogs. I wouldnt mind if all dogs were muzzled while people take them out for a walk.
As it has been said before... you cant compare the keeping of dogs to the keeping of reptiles. Dog owners expose their neighbours to the dangers of their dog. Reptile owners only expose themselves to the dangers of their pet in 99% of the case.
Just for the record. i am not a anti-dog kinda person. I love dogs. I grew up with a german shepard that my parents bought. I just think that many large dogs are just unsuitable for most people to keep (and that includes my family with the german sheppard we had).
chailatte
10-16-04, 02:55 PM
Two things:
1) How will they define 'pit bull'? American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers or all of the above? What about unregistered dogs? Mixed breeds? What if the owner denies its a pit bull and says its a mutt? What if they got it at the pound and don't know what its parents were? I once saw a beagle rottwieller mix with cropped ears that looked just like a pit bull. Who will judge?
2) Like it or not, more and more communities are banning venomous snakes and the trend will continue. Many places have also banned constrictors and specifically include 'dangerous' ones like kingsnakes, rats and milks.
You can support individual rights or not, but if you don't, keep your mouth shut when yours are taken away.
It's not just Pit BUlls they are banning. Quietly they are also putting other breeds on the list apparently. They haven't announced which breeds, but I hope you all don't get caught up in it with your pets.
Marisa
First of all most dog owners don't expose their neighbours to the danger of their dog, irresponsible dog owner's would just like a irresponsible reptile owner could do the same thing. All it can take is one person to screw up and alot of reptiles could be banned to.... even if you were a responsible owner yourself. This has already happened in alot of communities and is continuing, and not just venomous or large constrictors but all snakes.
Funny that the Pitbull owner's are the only ones who don't think that their dogs are ticking time bombs. Well that could be because people who don't own any don't know what they are really about, and if you believe that they a ticking time bombs and that their brain is under pressure as they get older and that they have locking jaws then I guess you must believe in fairy tales too.
hope they dont get my beagle
http://wmaod.smugmug.com/photos/7746277-L.jpg
Quick! Hide your children and run for cover!!
RepTylE
10-16-04, 11:04 PM
Can't you see the killer look in that beagle's eyes? That dog sees a porkchop when it looks at you.
gonesnakee
10-16-04, 11:20 PM
beagle, first off I too am questioning the "pressure" thing thats why I asked, but irreguardless of whether their jaws actually lock or not these guy's ability to hang on no matter what is not that of an average dog no matter what you think pitbull owner or not LOL. I have been around lots of dogs all 37 of my years & not many can hang on like a PB. Oh & I am reading/replying to an internet forum so I'm obviously entertained by "fairy tales" Heh Heh ; )
Sadly the dog I was refering too as a possible comparrison did just snap one day & tried to attack one of its owners unprovoked. He being her master made that easy to control right away as it was always a good obedient dog prior. It then took to randomly trying to attack various friends of theirs that it had grew up & played with all its life just out of the blue. And finally latched on to a guys upper arm "big time" & made quite a mess of it before it was finally put down as a result. Maybe it had some other medical issue or something that made it go from big puppy to going for the throat, but it did happen & got progressively worse over around a six month period before the final incident. The whole ticking time bomb theory which I don't support BTW does has a basis though argutively whether we all choose to accept it or not.
I hope you don't think that I support any euthanizing based on age or anything because of course I don't. Unless of course it is a suffering animal & thats always a tough call no matter what.
I'm on the "Good Side" but have to play devils advocate as this is being debated right? Open minds want to hear all perspectives, Mark
P.S. "Killer" Beagle sweet :p
justinO
10-17-04, 12:04 AM
I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but I came across this video on another website.
some video is graphic, and there are profanities in the song. however, I think this video says it all thou.
http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/
gonesnakee
10-17-04, 12:20 AM
justinO best post yet! I suggest everyone here views the link pictures definitely speak louder than words Mark
U huh....
That video is sad but very one sided...
MANY attacks have been completely unprovoked..
Remember.. I was a victim of such an attack...
If pictures speak louder than words.. would you like to see what a FRIENDLY house pet that was well taken care of did to me?
Until you witness a dog attack... u have no idea...
gonesnakee
10-17-04, 12:37 PM
As stated a few times I have been attacked by plenty both in the City & rurally. I was a paperboy for years & worked exploration for over a decade. Try laying equipment thru a farmyard with 4 or 5 aggressive large breed dogs trying to keep you out of it, been there done that plenty. The dogs could care less about the paper permit & the farmers would rather not have ya there permit or not & the oil company wants its data at any cost. I have seen results of serious unprovoked attacks on others & it ain't pretty, but don't think you are the only one who understands the results of such attacks. You aren't the only one with scars my friend. Video is no more one sided then opinions posted here. Mark
P.S. as always 2 simple words "Controlled & Contained" no matter what the creature. With that said I'm done with this thread.
RepTylE
10-17-04, 01:30 PM
I responded to this topic several times during the past few days. I expressed the social implications of unilateral bans and even posted a humorous comment but refrained from making a comment on the dogs in question until now. I think that there are breeds of dogs that aren't for everyone but are available to anyone that has the cash. The powers that be have responded in the only way that they know how. I am sorry for all the people that are affected by this ban but it was the irresponsble owners that you should be venting your frustration to. They failed you all as pitbull enthusiasts.
I only hope that a rash of reptile "incidents" never happens to provoke the politicians to impose bans on herps as well. I have said it countless times, everyone one of us are ambassadors of our hobby. What the public sees is what they will think.
pcw_phoenix
10-17-04, 01:31 PM
WELL FROM READING ALL THIS STUFF...I HOPE THEY DON'T BANG TURTLE, SNAKE, LIZARD KEEPINGS...:(..THAT'LL BE BAD...WHT IF SOMEONE WHO WORKS FOR ONE OF THE GOVERNEMENT'S OFFICE HAD A DAUGHTER OR SON...AND THEY GOT THEIR HAND CHEWED OFF A SNAPPING TURTLE OR A BITE FROM A SNAKE OR A BITE FROM A BEARDIE...I HOPE THAT GOVERNMENT PERSON DON'T BANG THE REPTILES...
crucified
10-17-04, 03:15 PM
good post justinO.. i was going to post that but my comp was acting up last night... *thumbs up*
I posted this on the other Pittbull thread but as this one seems to be the active one now I'll repost here.
I gave up on trying to argue the points on this issue quite a while ago since I found far too many narrow minded people arguing the points. I posted links to studies by actual temperement testing societies and these same people chose to ignore the facts given by these sites. I will fight any ban and any person or group who thinks they can impose their ban on me and take away my family.........I choose to spend my time with my dog and make him the loving, gentle pet he has become and stop wasting my time on an issue that will never be solved properly.
http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/5128017_17.jpg
http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/5128013_13.jpg
http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/5128015_15.jpg
http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/5128014_14.jpg
Can you see the evil in the eyes of my kitten as she savagely attacks my helpless dog.
P.S. Thank you for posting that link justinO, very hard to watch but speaks volumes.
Invictus
10-17-04, 03:48 PM
Isn't it funny how just because someone has a different opinion that is just as educated as anyone else's, they are called "narrow minded"? Sad, really.
That's the problem though, I've yet to see an opinion that is fully educated on the subject. I've seen a few stats posted supposedly by the CDC which is the total opposite of stats from actual temperement testing societies.........please tell me which one is more knowledgeable on the subject? Where is the CDC getting these temperement stats from if American temp. testing society and every other testing society gives much much different results. I've been able to provide links to these sites to prove this point and I still had people saying that they simply found the stats hard to believe.......well these people are experts with degrees and vast amounts of knowledge on the issue but since they are just so hard to believe due to the usually overwhelming media hype given to "viscious" Pitt's I guess they can't be true.
Like I said I'm finished on this subject now, the two sides will never agree and unfortunately it is a waste of time and yes it is very sad because once again people will ruin and ultimately wipe out another beautifull animal.
I'd like someone to clear that up for me as well???
The CDC says Puts are terrible and have all these stats against them, but multiple temperment testing agencies have shown Pit BUlls to pass more often than known "lovable" breeds. And many Canadian vets are completly against this dog ban and they are pissed no one listened to their EDUCATED opinion before passing this ban... Who is right and who is wrong? It's confusing.
Marisa
RepTylE
10-17-04, 07:36 PM
In a way both sides are right and both are wrong. People who own pits that wouldn't hurt a fly say that attacks are provoked and rare and people who want the ban say that pits are ticking timebombs. The point that Invictus and a few others made is that even if it is rare for a pit to attack you get manged and if it is a kid that gets mangled then the price is pretty damned high. You look for high ground on this issue and you better pack a lunch because you are going to be awhile.
chailatte
10-17-04, 08:34 PM
Just a couple stats: in a typical year in the US, 25 people are killed by dogs. About 13 would be mixed breed, 6 Rottweiller, 4 Pit Bull-types, 2 other. Also, 15 people will die of snake bites, at least 10 of whom are handling or catching 'pets'. I would estimate that there are a hundred times more pit bull type dogs than venonous snakes as pets, which makes snakes 250 times more dangerous. Add that to the average person's love of dogs and fear of snakes and what is more likely to get banned? Throw in the fact that about every year you hear about somebody's kid getting swallowed by a python, and its understandable that so many cities are banning venonmous and constrictors. I am amazed that people whose pets will probably soon be banned everywhere won't stick up for other people's pets.
Stats are useless without a reliable references to back them up. Chailatte where do you get your numbers from??
The reason the CDC report is so interesting is that the data is factual and quantifiable. Before you criticize the report, actually read it.
Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.
Summarizes breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to assess policy implications.
I'm in favor of a Pit Bull ban along with some of the other more aggressive breeds we now have. But the report has some very interesting things to say about the practical problems of such a ban and offers alternate solutions. Check it out. It has points that support the anti dog baning side as well.
One final note. The CDC is one of THE most respected scientific institutions in the world. They are at the forefront on many issues dealing with the health and welfare of citizens world wide and are more likely to err on the side of caution when reporting statistics than not. Like the report or hate it, the data is rock solid.
RepTylE
10-17-04, 09:05 PM
Okay when the statistics come out it's time for me to move on................
Tim and Julie B
10-17-04, 11:41 PM
There are approximately 5 million dogs in Canada, and 70 million dogs in the United States.
The Canadian Kennel Club (CKC) recognizes approximately 160 dog breeds, with over 25,000 members and 700 breed clubs.
A dog's breed can not be proven, not even by DNA.
Dog 'breeds' have no more scientific basis than do human 'races'.
There are Great Danes that can point, a 'pit bull' with a Herding title, retrievers that don't retrieve, Rottweilers that work as Therapy Dogs, and some small breeds (Yorkshire Terrier, Pomeranian, West Highland White Terrier, Lhasa Apso, Dachshund) that have killed people.
Dogs are classified as carnivores, even though they can live healthy lives as vegetarians.
The tallest dog was a Great Dane that stood 42" high at the shoulder.
The heaviest dog was a Mastiff that weighed nearly 350lbs.
The smallest dog was a Yorkshire Terrier that measured 2.5" high.
The oldest living dog (2003) is a 28-year-old, vegan Border Collie.
The family dog is a normal, cherished part of the Canadian family.
So, if a dog's genetics cannot be proven then how can a breed be banned? Who can regulate, with 100% accuracy, the dogs that fall into the category "pitbull"? No one, because it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE. Just because it looks like one, doesn't mean it is. I've seen what I thought were labs, that were 3/4 staffordshire, and only 1/4 lab.
We can't emphasize this enough. "The public" is not involved in the overwhelming majority of dog bite cases. Any attempts to ban dog breeds or enact stiffer leash laws will have little effect, since we know people are bitten by a dog they know (not a stranger walking his/her dog in public) while the dog is on its own property, where leash laws do not apply.
Some might even suggest that those who hide behind a facade of "public safety" are being intentionally misleading. Anyone who implies that the cause for the overwhelming majority of dog bites is predominantly anything other than irresponsible owners leaving their poorly socialized dogs (and usually their children) unsupervised, is just plain wrong. The statistics bear this out.
Leash Laws Cause Dog Bites.
No need to elaborate here.
Biting Incidents: (The Basics)
There is no such thing as a breed of dog that won't bite.
Supervised dogs in public places rarely bite strangers. The general public has little rational or statistical reason to fear someone lawfully walking his or her dog down a public street.
No breed of dog has more than 0.1% of its members involved in serious biting incidents...meaning...99.9% of all dogs, regardless of breed, never attack anyone. No reasonable person can suggest restricting 99.9% of ANY group based on the actions of such a tiny minority.
The term 'pit bull' generally refers to a group of dog breeds.
We have not yet confirmed an unprovoked dog-related fatality in Canada that has been officially attributed to a 'pit bull'. [QUOTE]
Hmm.......pretty nifty little tid-bit of info eh? All dogs can bite? Whoa, no way!
[QUOTE]
***Myth: "Some dogs are genetically predisposed to attack."
While we would love to dispute every angle of that kind of erroneous comment, we don't need to. We can easily disprove the misguided notion that some kind of genetic abnormality is what causes dogs to attack, by simply looking at the actual dogs involved in serious biting incidents.
The Lab/Beagle cross and the purebred Doberman involved in biting incidents 5,000 km and 10 years apart do not share relevant genes, other than those that make them both dogs. The purebred Dalmation that killed another dog and the Golden Retriever that killed a child are not genetically related, either. In fact, even the purebred Rottweiler that killed a child in one province and the purebred Rottweiler that attacked a person in another province share no common ancestors in their pedigrees. In short, the dogs involved in biting incidents are no more closely related than dogs in general.
There is no scientific evidence for a genetic cause for aggression, and there is no evidence that the dogs involved in attacks share relevant genetic information, even if there were.
The largest study of its kind, in which many of the dogs involved dog bite-related fatalities were examined by veterinarians, found that the dogs who'd killed people had no physical, mental or physiological abnormalities. All tests came back normal, including bloodwork and brain examination.
Still need more proof?
As a general estimate, let's say that, out of approximately 5 million dogs in Canada, 50 dogs are involved in serious biting incidents each year. (To clarify, that would be 0.001% of all dogs; leaving 99.999% of Canadian dogs not involved in attacks.) If we look at those 50 dogs, individually, we find they represent a wide range of shapes, sizes, breeds, and original breed purposes. Clearly, there is no one breed or size or original breed purpose involved in serious biting incidents.
In fact, no breed of dog has more than 0.1% of it's members involved in serious attacks. It would be absurd to say that 0.1% of the dogs in any breed are 'merely fulfilling their genetic destiny' by attacking someone or something, and that the 99.9% of all dogs who never attack, are behaving somehow "abnormally" by not behaving aggressively. Most dogs never attack anyone, and that includes the often maligned breeds, too! If any breed were 'genetically predisposed to attack', certainly more than 0.1% of them would!
In regards to the theory that aggression can be either inherited or genetically linked, what unique, relevant genetic information could possibly be shared by:
the Labrador/Rottweiler cross (Sporting/Working Group) that killed one of its owner's children,
the Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier Group) that killed a neighbour's dog,
the purebred Golden Retriever (Sporting Group) that killed its owner's child,
the Border Collie (AKC, Herding Group) that viciously attacked a neighbour's dog,
the purebred Pomerananian (Toy Group) that killed the owner's child,
or the purebred Bullmastiff (Working Group) that killed one of its owner's child's friends?
In fact, the ACTUAL dogs involved in attacks do not share any unique genetic information with each other, besides that which makes them dogs.
We need not look any further than the lack of any supporting evidence for shared genetic pathology in dogs that have actually attacked. They simply aren't any more closely related than the dog population in general.
However, just to completely refute the idea that genetics are involved in attacks, we've broken it down further.
If we group those dogs by breed, we find that even the dogs of the same breed are not genetically related in any meaningful way. They don't share any relevant common ancestors on their pedigrees, and therefore have not inherited some kind of aberrant gene that might explain their inappropriate behaviour.
If they're purebred dogs, we can completely refute the notion that those dogs involved in attacks share some kind of genetic cause for their aggression. By definition, purebred dogs are not crossed with other breeds. To explain a shared genetic cause in dogs from two different breeds, the gene would have to have been inherited from the breeds' shared ancestor, decades (even centuries) earlier, before those individual breeds were even created. No reasonable person would suggest that a gene would lie dormant for centuries in all its descendants, then suddenly cause aggressive behaviours in one individual dog, so many years later. It's preposterous!
Next is the issue of original breed purpose as causational. In fact, whether the attack was against a person or another animal, every single breed of dog has been guilty of serious biting incidents of one kind or another. When a Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier group) attacks another dog, it is for the same reason that a German Shepherd Dog (Herding Group), Rottweiler (Working Group), or an American Pit Bull Terrier (UKC, Terrier Group) might attack another dog.
The overwhelming majority of dogs who attack other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting. That is important enough to repeat: Most of the dogs ACTUALLY involved in unprovoked attacks on other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting! This thoroughly disproves the notion that breeds originally bred for fighting are somehow destined to attack other dogs.
:D Guess there's no need to hold back the "calm" ones to produce those "genetically gentle" dogs. Afterall, aggression is NOT GENETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know that this has been beaten to death, but this is necessary to post. For a lot of other great, non-misleading info, please visit www.goodpooch.com and read everything on the site:D It has good info for every person, whether you have dogs or not, and even if you don't like dogs much, there are some great tips on avoiding "a dog bite" provoked or not. Thanks to any who choose to read this post/visit the site:D Hey, it can't hurt, right?:D
Julie
Invictus
10-18-04, 12:34 AM
What the temperament testing society says is irrelevant. The fact is, people and animals are being viciously mauled to the point of dismemberment, disfigurement, and death. More often than not, the attack is unprovoked. Maybe the "uneducated" people are the ones who are blatantly ignoring this FACT just because they own pitbulls and have never been personally attacked.
In 1997 alone, 97 people were killed by White Tailed Deer in the US... (some of the knowledge I picked up at Little Rays this weekend) Should we ban them too????
HeatherRose
10-18-04, 12:56 AM
Distant memories terrorize me to this day of a childhood mishap when I was almost trampled, stomped on AND eaten alive by the herd of evil, ferocious, rabid deer at Marine Land. BAN THE DEER.
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 01:13 AM
Nothing that is studied, and documented, can be deemed "irrelevant". This whole "dismemberment" thing has been taken far out of context. Like I said before, I have seen a 5 year old torn to peices by shepherds. She died on scene. No one wanted to ban shepherds after. The dog was put down, the owners were fined. Yes, it was very sad. A lot of people were angry, but not once did anyone want to blame an entire breed. The thing is, you can ban a breed, but another will take it's place int he blame game. ANY dog can and will attack. If we are going to ban "pits" then every other dog should be banned too.
My point in posting prior to this was to try and get some good information out there. Yes, I like staffordshire terriers, I own two, but my beliefs are not a reflection of what dog I choose to keep. I would have thought that some of you would know me well enough to know that I am not judgemental. I am not biased either. What I believe is that mass condemnation of a single breed is wrong. You can't just sweep something under the carpet in the hopes that it will go away. If people chose this path with everything in life, where would that leave humanity. There will be something next, and something thereafter, you can count on it. Everything has a starting point, and if we allow this kind of thought process to continue, it'll only be a matter of years before all our actions(whether personal or material) are under some sort of guideline.
There is no such thing as a breed of dog that won't bite.
Supervised dogs in public places rarely bite strangers. The general public has little rational or statistical reason to fear someone lawfully walking his or her dog down a public street.
No breed of dog has more than 0.1% of its members involved in serious biting incidents...meaning...99.9% of all dogs, regardless of breed, never attack anyone. No reasonable person can suggest restricting 99.9% of ANY group based on the actions of such a tiny minority.
Ken (not to single you out, just to reply to your opinion above)
What the temperament testing society says is irrelevant. The fact is, people and animals are being viciously mauled to the point of dismemberment, disfigurement, and death. More often than not, the attack is unprovoked. Maybe the "uneducated" people are the ones who are blatantly ignoring this FACT just because they own pitbulls and have never been personally attacked.
.....but,
The term 'pit bull' generally refers to a group of dog breeds.
We have NOT yet confirmed an UNPROVOKED dog-related fatality in Canada that has been officially attributed to a "pit bull'.
Anyways, like I said, please visit www.goodpooch.com and read everything before jumping the gun. I have read all the good and bad stuff posted here (on ssnakess) and every scrap of info I could find elsewhere. I just don't see how anyone can agree that a complete ban is the answer. Maybe it's the lazy, thoughtless way our cheap politicians work, but it's not a solution. There will be ways around this, people are far to resourceful for this to ever really work.
Julie
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 01:18 AM
Matt, Heather, yes, please ban the deer..........such nightmares........such complete terror..........
Can we ban cars while we're at it? I've lost 9 friends to mva's. Wait, the drunk drivers were probably the real threat, let's ban them. Wait, can't do that, it'd be like preventing bad dog owner's from having dogs. Nope, can't be done, it'makes too much sense to ever work!
Julie
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 01:26 AM
Breed Bans
No reputable agencies support breed bans.
Dog bites are not an issue of 'public safety'.
Breed determination is subjective. A dog's breed can not be proven, even through DNA. Therefore, the determination of breed is the subjective opinion of the observer.
There is no course of study for breed differentiation.
Few individuals are expert enough to determine breed. For instance, a veterinary license only certifies the individual is expert at diagnosing and treating illness, and performing surgery. Unless veterinarians acquire extensive experience outside their practices, their license alone does not certify them as especially knowledgeable in canine behaviour, training, genetics, or breed differentiation.
Breed bans assume every member of a breed poses an identical risk, and completely negates the overwhelming influence of the owner's training.
Breed bans assume individuals are guilty, with no opportunity to prove their innocence.
Breed generalizations are equivalent to national generalizations: They rarely hold true at an individual level.
Studies show that breed bans do not reduce the number or severity of dog bites.
The dog breeds and mixes that bite most often in Canada have not been banned or restricted anywhere.
Serious dog bites continue to occur in cities that have banned specific breeds. The dogs involved are simply not one of the banned breeds.
So the "bites" go on eh? Gee, go figure, since all dogs can bite you!
The Canadian Kennel Club:
· The Canadian Kennel Club supports dangerous and vicious dog legislation in order to provide the most appropriate protection for the general public and the innocent dog owner. We are opposed to breed-specific legislation in any form, anywhere in this country or internationally. It is both short-sighted and unacceptable, anywhere.
The Canada Safety Council:
· The Canada Safety Council does not recommend breed bans.
Canadian Veterinary Medical Association:
· The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) supports dangerous dog legislation provided that it does not refer to specific breeds.
The Centers for Disease Control:
· Breed-specific approaches to the control of dog bites do not address the issue that many breeds are involved in the problem and that most of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog owners.
· Tethered dogs are more likely to bite than untethered dogs.
JAVMA (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association):
· Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dogs breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues.
· Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
The American Kennel Club:
· The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.
GoodPooch.com:
· GoodPooch.com is against any restrictions of dog ownership based on a dogs size, gender, reproductive status, breed, or phenotype.
Julie
chailatte
10-18-04, 07:53 AM
RFB- I read the JJ Sacks et al report you referred to, and I stand corrected. Actual dog bite fatalities are only about half of what I said. And I agree with the report's conclusion: that breed-specific legislation is not the best choice due to constitutional and practical considerations. The practical considerations( difficulty in determining breed) are highlighted by the report's use of 'pit bull-type dog' as a category of purebred. They did not attempt to break this down into American Staffordshire, Staffordshire, American Pit Bull, and Bull Terrier because they had to rely on the breed identification given in police and hospital reports without any verification of the dog's registration. If someone said they were bitten by a pit bull, it went down as pit bull. No one made a list of breeds that would be classed as pit bull then checked pedigrees to see if the dogs were actually registered as one of those breeds. And I forgot to mention the fatalities from dachsunds, yorkies, and pomeranians. I don't support banning the 27 breeds listed as causing fatalities, I support putting down biting dogs and prosecuting the owners.
Man,
You people are digging your own hole...
The recent posts keep highlighting case after case of children being killed by dogs... (not just pits)
And these dogs are called PETS.... so dont confuse them with wild deer.. LOL
I dont know about you, but I value ANY kids life far above anyone's right to keep a dog...
Keep highlighting that and Im sure the time will come where all large breeds will be banned from residential areas.
BTW.. how many of you good PIT owners are willing to destroy your dog at the first hint of agression shown to a human? (like they used to)
"In 1997 alone, 97 people were killed by White Tailed Deer in the US". I work at Little Rays and I have heard this statistic being used by the zoo keepers when they compare the number of deaths caused by alligators to the number of deaths caused by deer. I never use this example as I think it is misleading. First of all aliigators are only found in Florida (not including the pets). Deep however has a much wider range. People killed by an alligator are usually the cause of an aggressive attack... usually by a female defending her nest or young. Most of the deaths by the deer are accidents of people running into them on the road.
HeatherRose
10-18-04, 09:12 AM
And these dogs are called PETS.... so dont confuse them with wild deer.. LOL
The deer I mentioned were meant for interaction and snuggles with the public, and small children. But this is getting silly :p
Sorry folks.... Bad breed!!!! and besides the point many get a pitbull because of the reputation instead of the dog itself!!!! I have had pitbulls and have not raised them to fight etc..... but i will tell you they ALL went after other dogs to hurt not play!!! And as i said i did'nt train them to they just DID!!! No remorse on pitbulls here and you can't change my mind. I think this bans is good simply because i see more and more minors walking these dogs through the neighborhood proudly onlt simply because aparently pittbull fights is in among the young these days and some have never owned an animal in there life and decided the PITT was the way to go... for centuries you play with something not in a responsible way eventualy someone will take it off you for your well being and in this case i am not frowning!!!! So ontario your not being picked on your simply not being given the chance to let another "attack" never happen again and sorry but thems the breaks.... So if your not happy with that decision take it up with cityhall not your fellow friends from ssnakess as this is a reptile form after all is'nt it?!!!
Invictus
10-18-04, 10:55 AM
For any organization to say "We have NOT yet confirmed an UNPROVOKED dog-related fatality in Canada that has been officially attributed to a "pit bull'." is the most misleading statement presented yet. For starters, just because one biased organization is yet to confirm it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Secondly, this mileads people into thinking pit bulls are not a bad breed. Just last year in Calgary a kid was mauled so badly by a pit bull on his HEAD AND FACE, that he will be permanently disfigured. Maybe 'fatalities' aren't the worst of what's happening with this breed - the fact that people have to live with these permanent reminders of how vicious pit bulls can be is perhaps far worse!
concept3
10-18-04, 11:42 AM
I read one post on here that made sence to me. How can any of you guys support this ban when our reptiles will probably be the next to go. I hear people whine because we live In alberta and cant own the 5 largest constrictors. Other than the type of animal in question these bans are the exact same. Lots of people on here complain about reptile bans because average people are uneducated about reptiles. The average (non herp owning) person sees the people on the news that get kiled by their venomous snake or hurt by their large constrictors and lable all reptiles that way. Well you people who want pitbulls to be banned are the same as these uneducated people that think reptiles are monstors.
what is it gonna take for you guys (the pro ban people) to pull your head out of your ***? Them to impose a reptile ban?
spidergecko
10-18-04, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Shad0w
BTW.. how many of you good PIT owners are willing to destroy your dog at the first hint of agression shown to a human? (like they used to)
I would love to hear the answer to this.
"How can any of you guys support this ban when our reptiles will probably be the next to go".
Simple. Our reptiles are not mauling and killing our neighbours and their children. Vicious dogs are.
And lets not kid ourselves. So many people buy pitbulls just because of the reputation these dogs have in the first place. Ive lost count of how many thug wannabees Ive seen out there walking their pitbulls. Put something in a rap video and the kids will buy it. This includes dogs.
Originally posted by spidergecko
I would love to hear the answer to this.
Chalk one up for YES.. I believe in the other thread 2 or 3 people mentioned that they would also do so...
And lets not kid ourselves. So many people buy pitbulls just because of the reputation these dogs have in the first place. Ive lost count of how many thug wannabees Ive seen out there walking their pitbulls. Put something in a rap video and the kids will buy it. This includes dogs.
The same can be said for Reptiles.. As we saw the other day with someone posting that they wanted a snake so they could see it 'choke' something to death.. I do agree with your statement 100% though BAZ..
RepTylE
10-18-04, 04:43 PM
I tried to make the point that it is important that all of us as reptile enthusiasts create and maintain a good image. incidents can happen with reptiles as easily as other animals.... a cute bunny can bite a child and draw blood (see how a parent reacts to something like that). People are easily panicked and when they panic you know what can happen. Another point is that alot of people have an instinctive or learned fear of reptiles. That is as big a strike against them as a pitbull's reputation.
I expressed the fear that one day on a provincewide basis that herp bans could be implemented. The precident of a province wide ban has been set, lets hope that the lawmakers don't get too overzealous.
A province wide herp ban can be implemented very easily on herps. It all starts with communities starting first, just like the pitbulls. Lots of communities have banned herps, and some new ones even did this year.
So how many of you Pitbull owners actually lobbied to have, what you term sensible laws concerning the breed, put in place? Whining and screaming about it after the fact is pretty useless. You have to be proactive, not reactive when it comes to legislation. Ottawa did an excellent job of lobbying city government to enact reasonable legislation concerning Herps. True they didn't get everything thery wanted, but our hobby is still alive and well here. I don't think there will ever be a blanket ban on Herps in Canada. But if they want to ban species such as poisoness snakes and crocodilians thats OK by me. The vaste majority of people aren't qualified to keep them anyway.
Lastly, one major difference between Herps and pitbulls is that Pitbulls are constantly out in suburban environments where they are exposed to the general public. Unless you count the idiots who walk around with their snakes coiled around their necks the same can't be said for Herps. Big difference.
I for one would stick up for resonable laws on pitties and it's not just pitties but alot of large breed dogs that are going to be on there. Irresonsible owners ruined it for owners of pitbulls so something had to be done,....just not a ban like that. It is very invasive. I am sure there are going to be lobbies and everything else to try to change this. I know were I live here we are going to be sending letters with signatures of vets and proffesionals to the MP and whoever else.
As for reptiles I lose count of how many people actually lose them every year and a snake doesn't have to attack someone to be threatening. All it has to do is show up and scare the s*** out of a someone. We have an alright ban on snakes were I live only in residetial due to the fact that a cougar someone was keeping got out a few times...... a cougar.......not a snake that got snakes banned.
The laws they're lobbying for are what??
All Dogs must be spayed/neutered - Mine already is.. AND She's registered and microchipped..
Muzzle at all times - Getting my muzzle tomorrow..
ALWAYS on a leash - goes without saying around here.. My dog is ALWAYS on a leash when outside of our FENCED yard..
And they're thinking about not allowing them in public parks.. - No public parks up here..
Am I missing anything?? Please let me know if I am..
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 09:01 PM
If any of my dogs ever showed any aggressision toward ANYONE and it led to an unprovoked bite, I would definately put it down. Like I said, I don't own them for "reputation", I have them becuase they are good dogs that needed good homes. A place where they will always be well cared for, loved and never misjudged. Anyone supporting a breed ban shouldn't have any dogs at all. Either you like animals or you don't. By saying you agree to bans is very much like saying you don't think dogs should/could be good pets. One dog is just like another, whether they are different breeds or sizes. If a dog is going to attack to kill something then it will, and ANY dog can do this. Anyone willing to do the research will very quickly discover that.
We need laws to protect our animals, not to destroy them. If a dog does something irrefutably wrong, put it down, but don't place blame where it does not belong (on good dogs).
Julie
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 09:15 PM
www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm
I cannot copy and paste this info, but please read:D It gives a wonderful breed description, and very clearly states that these dogs are great family pets. It comes down to who owns them, not the breed itself.
Thanks,
Julie
herpslave
10-18-04, 09:26 PM
well considering there is so many pages I will say some thing that probably is close to what alot of others said. Ok, I have been around pit bulls since I was not even a year old. All way larger then I was. A couple I have played with that were "MEAN DOGS" never ate me, killed me, attempted, or even bit me. The only reason i have been bitten by a dog is because I stepped on a large strays foot we took in once. I mean my god, My pohmeranian was more aggressive than the mean pits I have been around... The pohmeranian even scarred me in the leg, ear, and arm multiple times... It's not the breed. It's the overall attitude of the dog. Which of coarse at most times can be changed from bad to good. And some can't.
I support strict laws regarding, the maintaining of ALL DOGS, American PitBull Terriers Included, however, i am not about to remove the testicles, of my champion line bred Dog, to appease the public, once removed, my dog may never enter into any competition that recognizes my breed again, (and he has been in shows) wich is hurtful to the breed in its own way, removing the superior stock from the gene pool. to quote a respectable website "Punish The Deed, Not The Breed"
Josh
P.s. Refer to my quote below...
LOL... okay.. I dont know what ya meant to show with that link Julie.. but it clearly states they are:
"a dog of power"
"house the powerful jaws"
"extremely strong for his size"
"not recommended for most people."
"can be willful and needs a firm hand"
" it will fight an enemy to the death"
"Originally used as fighting dogs"
"may go for the throat of strange dogs"
"Socialize very thoroughly when young to combat aggressive tendencies"
"fighting instinct in the breed"
Most people would say these things favour an all out ban...
Sure does not sound like a good AVERAGE family pet...
Not many pepople would be willing to do what it takes to properly keep these dogs.. hence.. the ban is appropriate...
In fact.. this article makes them sound down right dangerous in the WRONG HANDS :D
People could keep wolves if they wanted to.. but would they make good AVERAGE family pets?
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 09:35 PM
Love how you only copied the "negative stuff. How ignorant, when there is far more paositve then negative on the actual site!
It even says that they make great family pets.
(what was so "elegantly" left out)-
*by no means are these dogs people-haters or people-eaters
*the american pit bull terrier is a good natured, amusing, extremely loyal and affectionate family pet, which is good with children and adults
*it is usually very friendly, but has an uncanny ability to know when it needs to protect and when everything is okay
*excellent with children in the family, they have ahigh pain tolerance and will happily put up with rough childplay
*as with ANY breed they should not be left alone with unfamiliar children
*a minimum of training will produce a tranquil, obidient dog
*when properly trained and socialized, this is a very good dog an a great family companion
Here's another one.
www.terrificpets.com/dog%5Fbreeds/american_pit_bull_terrier.asp
Tim and julie such is the way of fear, and hate mongers, they are ignorant of things, they dont care to know, look at Hitler for example, he pushed for the mass extermination of the jews, because he felt they were an inferior "Human" hey...wait a ticky.... doesn't this sound framiliar? what a coincidence!!!
Hey.. its not ignorant...
Im pointing out the fact that they are not GOOD family pets for the AVERAGE FAMILY...
COMMON now... if you wanna look at it.. look at both sides...
There are allot of SERIOUS negative issues... keep those blinders on... I would say ignoring those issues and not discussing them is ignorance...
This issue is getting old... SAY BYE BYE... the ban is here... the issue is over... people in general (excluding you responsible owners) were too stupid to realize it... so the govt did its job to protect the public...
Besides... what about the hybrids.... COMPLETELY unpredictable.... GIVE ME A BREAK!
Like i said before.. until you've been mauled by one... or witnessed one..... u have no idea...
I cannot believe some of you would actually put a dog before the public's safety....
HONESTLY... some of you gotta get out more...
They are DOGS... sure they may be your companion... but they are not people...
Okay...
Was I just called a hate monger?.... are you implying Im anti semetic???
JEZUS...Hitler???
THESE ARE DOGS PEOPLE....
Look at the good and the bad... dont put the blinders on to the bad characteristics...
Discuss them!
They are serious concerns, esp in the wrong hands or with hybrids...
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 09:56 PM
That's just it, where is the real discussion. All the anti-dogs people want outright bans, INSTEAD of finding viable solutions. Anti-dog people have swept things under the carpet to avoid educating themselves on both sides of the fence. I am FULLY aware of the strength of these types of dogs, I HAVE read all the bad with the good, but am intelligent enough to know that a ban is nothing more than a big bunch of BS swept under a tiny little rug.
The issue is getting old? Wait a minute, you started the thread!:D
Julie
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 09:59 PM
(what was so "elegantly" left out)-
*by no means are these dogs people-haters or people-eaters
*the american pit bull terrier is a good natured, amusing, extremely loyal and affectionate family pet, which is good with children and adults
*it is usually very friendly, but has an uncanny ability to know when it needs to protect and when everything is okay
*excellent with children in the family, they have ahigh pain tolerance and will happily put up with rough childplay
*as with ANY breed they should not be left alone with unfamiliar children
*a minimum of training will produce a tranquil, obidient dog
*when properly trained and socialized, this is a very good dog an a great family companion
http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/
Before you guys post again, please watch this video..
Yeah I did start this.. didnt I? LOL
Hey.. Im all up for a friendly debate...
But its just not cool when people get personal and start labelling others hate mongers and anti semites... etc just because one holds an opposing view...
I mean Im sure that opposing views deserve respect...
Dispite the fact that Im for the ban, I still respect you guys that are against it...
Matt, saw the video the other day... didnt do much for my opinion... I dont deny that people are at the heart of the problem... be it hybrids... selectively breeding and encouraging agression... etc.... mostly propogated by those that are looking for that bad boy image...
In general.. I think the public has a right to safety....
Dont blame those that are for the ban... blame those "bad boy image people"
And you cannot deny that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.. no one should have to die because of a domestic dog attack...
That has to be the absolute stupidest thing I've heard yet. Comparing this to Hitler and the extermination of the Jewish people. Now that is just downright ignorant and uncalled for and insults the memory of those who died in the holocaust. You're starting to sound likwe a PETA supporter.
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 10:15 PM
I can't believe what people can do to animals. I can't imagine my dogs being treated so horribly. People are to blame for the misunderstanding these dogs receive.
Have any of you who support the ban even tried to find out how many of these wonderful dogs have died at the hands of human cruelty? Have you tried at all to obtain stats on the number of attacks that have been provoked by people trying to cause aggression? You'd be amazed at what you could learn, if you choose to.
Julie
Besides... You could look at the ban in a positive way... Not only would it prevent attacks on the public.. but its going to make it hard for someone to own a Pitt for the wrong reasons... Id rather the animal not have to suffer under the cruel hand of a keeper that wants to fight it...
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 10:20 PM
No one should lose their child, friend or the likes to a drunk driver either. Far more people die at the hands of drunks than dogs, thousands more. But, what do we do? We don't blame the vehicle or the bar they get drunk at. The PERSON is held responsible, and should be in any situation. Banning a breed is sweeping things under the carpet. It's ignorant. Making something "invisible" is NOT a solution to anything.
Julie
I never said a ban was the ideal solution.. but its the easiest way.... You are never going to change people.. there will always be bad guys out there...
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 10:26 PM
Well shadow, great point:D I think that no animal should be "easily" obtainable. That's why there should be laws in place to help the public deal with this rationally. ALL dogs should have to be registered. It's the responsible thing to do, like sending your kids to school:D No dog should be free. Every life has value, but giving away animals takes their value away ( and I do not mean monetary value!!!) and incites mistreatment. Just because something is free, does not mean it should be abused. Please help to protect animals, not persecucte them. It will take time, effort, patience and yes money, but we should do things right the first time. If we continue to sweep things away, we will some day be faced with it all crashing down on us.
Julie
Tim and Julie B
10-18-04, 10:28 PM
Easy solutions always fail.........and the animals will pay the ultimate price. It makes me sick.
Julie
Well Julie... dispite the fact we are on opposing sides... the debate with you has been invigorating and interesting this eve... :)
Im out for the nite... Nite Nite... and CyA!
Jeff_Favelle
10-18-04, 10:44 PM
But, what do we do? We don't blame the vehicle or the bar they get drunk at. The PERSON is held responsible, and should be in any situation. Banning a breed is sweeping things under the carpet.
The reason is because banning a breed of dog has ZERO effect on the economy. It just affects a handful of people that like that breed of dog (and any subsequent breeds that get banned). If you close down every single bar and ban all motor vehicles, how will that affect the Canadian economy?
Maybe we are "saving the pittbull" by banning it. Seeing as how people are clearly the root of the problem, with the dog definitely being completely without blame, rather than banning stoopid people, and come on, 75% of the population falls under this category IMO, the "Powers that Be" have decided to ban the breed, to "protect" the dog from the stoopid. They have also saved the lives of countless other dogs and people who would likely have become victims of stoopid people. I'll be at the next "save the pittbull" rally, with a sign that says, "Save the pittbull, ban them". Haven't stoopid people given them enough of a bad reputation?
actually as far as i am concerned the "hitler" thing is a perfect comparison, it was one man, whos predjudice scarred the world, i by no means agree with what he had done, no more than i agree with the scarring that will happen to the province when you take this breed away. Granted Shad0w, i by no means meant to label you as a "hate monger" this was placed towards the individuals whom dont have any factual input to offer, however i still beleive your fear is greatly misconceived...i know you yourself were the victim of a dog attack, as was i, however, mine was suffered at the hands of a great dane... at the tender age of 10....this is a dog i could have ridden like a pony. And to this day, the only breed, i will safely turn my back on, is an American PitBull Terrier. to those of you, who are "on the fence" in this debate, or to those of you whom are lobbying for the ban, i suggest picking up a great book, that is based on scientific FACT, and statistics and is in no way biased in anyway shape or form, It's called "The American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook" published by Barrons, and wrriten by Joe Stahlkuppe. You yourself Shad0w have told me you have researched this breed, however i believe that it was based on your fear, and past experiences, as you havent said an iota of good things about the breed yet. For those of you who actually do pick up the book, i wouldn't be surprised if within a few weeks we all saw pics of your new APBT. But dont take my word for it, i urge you to go out, pick it up, and judge for yourself.
Josh
Tim and Julie B
10-19-04, 01:04 AM
But Mykee how is that going to solve anything? Those people will just turn to a new breed of dog instead. Banning them won't stop those people. While all the decent caring owners are being told that they're no longer able to own the breed they love.
TB
Is this the longest thread in ssnakess history?:D
Well Josh,
Im glad to hear those comments were not directed to me, but i kindly say without any disrespect indended, I think it highly inappropriate and disrespectful to compare a dog ban to the holocaust...
After all, Do you not think that if people are the problem, we are saving the pitbull any further pain and suffering from the ban?
And regarding REAL scientific data... if the CDC's data is not considered scientific... I dont know what is....
BTW.. good morning everyone :D
Tim and Julie B
10-19-04, 11:11 AM
Hey. morning! Thought I'd sneak in a couple lines before going back to work:D
I agree that you should all read "The American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook". Great book, completely unbiased.
While you could see the ban as a measure of protection of the breed, it's not. It's going to all but eliminate this dog from our society, which is in no way fair. We need laws to prevent irresponsible people from owning dogs, plain and simple. Someone needs to get off their flat arse, and spend real time fixing this thing, not covering it up.
See you all when I get back.
Julie
RepTylE
10-19-04, 11:20 AM
This discussion still going on??????
Yea the debate still rumbles on... not like its going to change a thing.. the ban is here...
Oh I don't know about that. There is alot being done to try change the ban. I don't know anyone who is taking their dog in to be spayed or neutered. Especially the people who have dogs with champion bloodlines. Muzzle's I can see and I would do, same with chains and leashes. Public parks are another good one I think. I own two, one spayed one not and the one that's not never will be spayed....just bred.
Interesting... according the the new law, how can you breed them legally? Could end up in a whole lotta trouble.
Oh yeah. Why would debating here change anything anyways. This is for the purpose of discussion, not changing laws or bans.
Yeah you could end up in trouble. All the ban is going to do is cause alot of people and breeders to do it secretly. Some people of course will follow it completely others that care about the breed won't. These were allowed for many years. You think people are going to give that up just like that?
Well, all it would take is yer neighbours to mention to the authorities what you are doing and yer toast...
At least this will keep the dogs out of public places...
Its a sad day when people will so willingly give up their rights
Its also a sad day when people loose compasion for fellow people because they feel that will never happen to me. Its amusing how great something can be when it doesn`t effect you but effects an idea you have in your head.
I am really sorry for everyone out there that will be losing this battle. I personally don`t have a pitbull, but I do have a rotweiler and I am terrified of the comments made by certain people stating that they should go to.
When people so easliy give up rights they don`t think they need the removal of other rights come to follow.
I guarentee this ban will be lobbied and the further it will go (ie. rotweilers, shepards, yes your ever so precious golden retreivers and Labs...) The harder I will work to have every Dog banned.
Why should you be able to have yours if I CAN`T have mine???
I know what you are saying ydnic. There was even mention of labs. and huskies are going on the list eventually and all larger dog breeds. Personally I don't think that a residential area is a good place for any large dog. I've lived in the country almost all my life with my dogs until recently I had to move to town for abit because of a job change and I do not like it at all for keeping dogs, but we are looking at buying another house in the country shortly so that will take care of that problem. If I had lived in town before I probally never would of got a larger dog, but I was not willing to let them go because I moved in town for abit.
well first and foremost, i think we all need to take a step back (me included) and look at this discussion from afar...
first off the ban is NOT here Shad0w its merely been agreed to pose a bill to legislation for the ban of paticular breeds across ontario, that said! Ottawa has pubicly dismissed, and agreed we will oppose this bill, but untill the choice has been made regarding it, this is far from decided, so your points about the ban being in place, are nothing more than hopeful wishing at this point.
second lets discuss and agree upon what a pitbull is? i've scoured both American, European, and Canadian registered breed listings and havent found one breed yet called a "pitbull". there for they dont exist, end of discussion. can we all agree upon that? if so, the use of the term pitbull shouldn't be used in the thread anymore, as they simply just dont exist.
now, if someone could attain information for me regarding attacks by "American Pitbull Terriers", "American Staffordshire Terrier" and the percentage of these breeds attacking, in comparison to every other breed of dog for all of us to see, i would greatly appreciate it, as i'm having trouble finding recorded attacks by both, these breeds.
lets start answering these questions, and see where this debate winds up...i guarantee all you people on the opposite side of the fence, arn't gonna like the answers LoL but find them for yourself!
Josh
forgot to mention, for those who don't understand how Dog breeds are decided upon, in order for an American Pit Bull Terrier to be called such, it would have to come from 100% registered, pure blood lines, on both Bitch, and Stud sides, anything less is classified as a "mix breed" by all registries for dog breeds, that should help some of you in your search for the truth, and answers.
Okay...
You are fooling yourself if you think these dogs, even the purebreds make GOOD family pets for the AVERAGE family... And lets not get into the hybrids / dogs bred for agressiveness and their image in general...
Lets rehash a website that Julie gave out yesterday stating facts on the breed...
Given there are positive points, one cannot overlook the glaring negative points:
www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm
Summary of negative points:
"a dog of power"
"house the powerful jaws"
"extremely strong for his size"
*** "not recommended for most people." ***
"can be willful and needs a firm hand"
" it will fight an enemy to the death"
"Originally used as fighting dogs"
"may go for the throat of strange dogs"
*** "Socialize very thoroughly when young to combat aggressive tendencies" ***
"fighting instinct in the breed"
Most people would say these things favour an all out ban...
Sure does not sound like a good AVERAGE family pet...
Not many pepople would be willing to do what it takes to properly keep these dogs.. hence.. the ban is appropriate...
In fact.. this article makes them sound down right dangerous in the WRONG HANDS
Face it.. the ban has worked in many municipalities and other countries, whom report a nice decline in the number of overall dog attacks with pitts out of the mix...
Dont fool yourself.. the ban is as good as here...
by the way bob...this CDC, what scientific company is that? never heard of it before in regards to dogs... perhaps you can post a webpage, or inform me who they are, not on any listing i have for recognized, scientific canine communities/organizations by the CKC or AKC
Josh
CDC is the Centers for Disease control
http://www.cdc.gov/
They are at the forefront of SCIENCE period!
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recognized as the lead federal agency for protecting the health and safety of people - at home and abroad, providing credible information to enhance health decisions, and promoting health through strong partnerships. CDC serves as the national focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States."
actually bob, all those points you just made, are infact also positive points, and one of the reasons this breed is what it is, and i will refer to one point said, "Not recommended for most people" therefore the problem obviously isn't in the breed, but in the measures of controlling, who obtains the breed, you the advocate for the banning of this breed, have proved for all of us against the ban, what we've been saying all along...punish the deed, not the breed, anyways... still waiting on those figures for the two breeds and attacks.... anyone? ... Please?
Josh
or are we by ourselves Bob? lol
*puts up his dukes*
lets settle this mono et mono bub! outside, in the playground after school!!
Josh
oh bob, i was afraid you were gonna say them... to bad, no dog community recognizes there supposed scientific data as fact... and every orginization that the CKC and AKC do recognize, prove that these two breeds are not human-agressive...ahh well lol
LOL.. I think we are by ourselves :)
Lemme direct you to the countless studies the CDC has done with regards to dog bite / attacks...
Over and Over again, they show Pitts as the #1...
Here is one such example:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Just go to www.cdc.gov and do a search for Dog
My point thus far...
These dogs might be great if pure bred and in the right hands.. but hybrids and in the wrong hands = disaster... easier to ban the dog than police people...
Invictus
10-19-04, 01:17 PM
Interesting. So now, anyone who has a different opinion is a hate monger, or is basing their information on FEAR?
Josh, you need to look past the end of your own nose and realize that you don't have the FACTS any more than anyone else who supports the ban does.
Julie, you seem to use the word "ignorant" in this thread a lot. Maybe the time has come for you to see past your own ignorance, as you as simply ignoring the fact that in MANY cases, the owners are COMPLETELY responsible (such as my old friend whose pit bull mauled a kid), and that blaming the people is just as ignorant as banning the breed. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them ignorant. I am well aware of the fact that pit bulls CAN and often DO make excellent pets. The issue here is not the likelihood of an attack, which you seem to be debating tooth and nail - the issue is the amount of damage done compared to other large breed dogs when an attack DOES occur. By then, controlling the animal, or discussing whether or not it should be banned is MOOT. The damage has been done, and now someone needs plastic surgery.
So Josh & Julie - I am not basing my opinion on fear, it is not based on ignorance, and it sure as hell is not based on hate mongering. I think all pitbulls, rottweilers, dobermans, and german shepherds should be banned in cities simply because I have seen, with my own eyes, what happens to some of these dogs,even with the most responsible owners on earth. I would appreciate it if you two would look at your own statements and realize that the "blanket solution" is just as bad as your "blanket labelling" of the people who oppose your opinion. Please don't insult my intelligence again by calling me ignorant or hate mongering.
Thank you.
ok i checked it out and they said one thing that shuts down their findings... Pit bull-TYPE dogs, meaning any short haired, of medium size build dog (wich by the way is the genral consensus of every major dog group on the face of the earth, but funny how they couldn't label it as breed specific? ie. American Pit bull Terrier, and American staffordshire Terrier? the verdict? these two breeds are as safe as any other breed...next please? :P
Josh
The bottom line is this in my opinion....and this goes no matter which side you agree with...
ANY dog can bite. My boyfriend pointed me to an article last night about a Pomeranium (sp) who mauled and KILLED a baby...Pit Bulls kill people, German Shepherds kill people, labs have killed, rotties have killed....TONS of breeds have killed people.
That we can all agree on, ANY dog can kill.
But what I don't agree with is ignoring one of the two main components in a dog attack, the dog, and it's owner. You remove the dog, but allow ignorant, foolish dog ownership to continue. There are still no muzzle laws for cocker spaniels, rotties, or any other dog. Only Pits. This makes 100% NO SENSE! These bad owners can easily go out and purchase a Border Collie to beat on which will in turn bite someone, which means another breed banned? LOL This cannot go on forever.
The government needs to STOP the easy clean up and START making ALL dog owners get a license. Not the normal one. It should be ANYONE who wants ANY breed of dog must take a class, just like driving a car. You must be educated, licensed, then you can own a dog. Removing breed after breed will do nothing but take away our rights and freedoms to own dogs, and eventually other animals. Start putting responsiblity 100% ON PEOPLE.
Marisa
Invictus, the only one insulting your intelligence is you... it was a general label applied to any, in fact i think i supported you at the begining of this thread, however that is beside the point, and once again i find myself in agreement with you, you just stated thatits the owners fault...i agree 100% i support strict laws in regards to this, and ANY breed of dog, i do not support a ban of any breed however. Take that as you will.
Josh
Josh, I totally disagree with you... LOL
The CDC's studies clearly state pitbull's... over and over again...
So you are playing on terms...
Josh.. while yer at it.. why dont you get your dog fixed? I mean you do agree we have to stop back yard breeders and strict laws right??? :) Be a leader and get your dog fixed :)
Marisa,
I cant agree with you more... we need more rules for dog owners period... like licencing, screening, mandatory neutering/spaying.... Stop the backyard breeders...
Actually it IS true there is no Pit Bull.....but also true that anyone using that against or for the ban is just playing with terms.
One thing I am curious about....does anyone know what Ontario plans to do with the thousands of Pit Bulls and Pit mixes currently in shelters? Can they adopt them out? Will they be putting down thousands of dogs? Or are those currently in shelters going to fall under the grandfather? Or?
Also, does anyone know how they plan to deal with dogs whos genes cannot be confirmed? I.E. A lab who looks like a lab but might be part pit?
Marisa
Marisa,
I heard they will not be allowed to adopt them out... thats why the Humane Soc. is against it.. they will all have to be destroyed.
Wow. That's terrible.
While I wish sometimes the shelters would just do a mass kill to help prevent more and more unwanted puppies and kittens, I am finding it hard to swallow that the government is actually going to simply destroy 1000's of dogs.
I am really conflicted on that.
Marisa
Invictus
10-19-04, 01:36 PM
Josh - If you think I blame the owners, you did not read my post.
I said, that even the most responsible owners on earth have had their pit bulls just snap one day, and there was NOTHING they could do about it. I do believe, based on things I have seen with my own eyes, that pit bulls are dangerous and should be banned.
the difference Shad0w is my dog is champion line bred, and participates in shows...and in order to participate in shows he needs to be flawless, ie still have his testicles. when i say backyard breeders i mean unregistered "Pit bull-LIKE" dogs lol as for the CDC im sorry im not playing on words, their whole findings are sketchy at best, and cant put there findings on one breed, and i thought we already discussed that "pit bull-like" dogs arnt even a registered, or accpeted breed ? so untill you find me 100% irrefutable proof, that these two breed specif dogs, the American Pit Bull Terrier, and The American Staffordshire terrier, are monsters, you have no case whatsoever Bob, the point of the matter is, your blaming an innocent breed by slapping on a generalied term on them, wich doesnt even apply, find me either one of two things, and i will yeild and say you are right, and i am wrong, either that Pit Bulls are in fact a registered breed, or proof that American Pitbull Terriers, have committed as many attacks as any other breed of dog, in so doing so, i will support a blanket ban of these two breeds.
Josh
Unfortunately, you wont be able to, as i have already tried myself...as have many others
"easier to ban the dog than police people"
So I guess it is always better to take the easy way out.
Again a play on terms :)
Im not looking for you to agree with me Josh... just voicing how I feel about what Ive read and experienced...
Beagle,
I never said it was the best solution.. did I?
Its just whats going to happen...
Is it easier to take a gun out of a childs hand as opposed to teach the kid how to use / respect it?
Which is easier?
ahh good point there shad0w, however whats more important? peoples freedoms, or the easy way out? wich would you prefer? would you prefer the government to ban all reptiles, or seek perhaps a sort of liscencing system for the responsible ones, to keep say...their alligator snappers? make the choice, wich would you prefer? liscence? or all out ban? all we want is the same consideration! we will be happy to support a liscence of sorts... and those whom dont have a pure bred dog, or intend on showing/breeding him should have their dog spayed, or neutered, for sure i agree with strict measures, i dont agree with having my rights, and freedoms taking away. and i'm sure Bob, invictus, the rest of the ssnakess community...you dont either.
Josh
Invictus
10-19-04, 01:51 PM
What about peoples' rights to walk down the street without being attacked by a vicious dog? When do those peoples' rights come into play?
Josh,
Honestly if ally snappers started charging down the street after kids, I would willingly give it up... sorry that image is funny :)
But on another note...
I for one am against keeping reptiles in certain situations too...
I used to be into large constrictors... burmese, retic... but got rid of them once I had kids... to me.. the risk is just not worth it... not only for myself and child, but also the community as a whole....
Bsides... the general public's rights to safety far outweigh a person's right to keep a dog...
Really you pro Pitt people should not be hating us pro ban people, be angry with the bad apples that caused this for you responsible owners...
Actually, they ARE adopting them out still.. They just can't find anyone to take them in.. Why??? Cause people are afraid of their dog biting someone and having to pay the $10,000 fine.. So if anyone is interested in taking in a new dog and potentially saving it's life.. Now is a GREAT time as there are HUNDREDS of dogs in need of homes right now..
http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20041018-015/page.asp
I also have a right to walk down the street and not get hit by a drunk driver....
Oh but wait...the government makes money off Booze...so it will never be illegal, no matter how many people it kills.
Marisa
Thats right.. until the ban is passed...
Yea Marisa, you do have that right :)
But I dont think its a fair comparison....
Everyone states drunk driving is wrong...
But we cannot exactly ban cars.. and you are right.. booze is a HUGE part of the economy... bars, restaurants... etc... thats not going anywhere...
We are talking about a dog here :)
And for the responsible owners out there that say we need stiffer laws...
How would you feel if your dog nipped a child...
You willing to dish out the 10G's it will cost you in fine's?
Or will you force a muzzle on your dog even if it does not appreciate it?
We can't ban cars. Nope. But the cars aren't the ones drinking. People are. Just like the dogs aren't walking themselves, PEOPLE ARE.
Drinking also costs the health care sector MILLIONS because of booze related problems, which kill. Booze kills thousands each year, but again, the government makes their money so they don't care who dies.
If the government had been making a tax off each dog puppy sold you better believe this situation would be different.
Marisa
I believe the responsible owners will use the muzzles that are being made mandatory.... wouldn't you think???
Oh Marisa,
Here is some clarification as to what will happen to the dogs in shelters... (no answer)...
Attorney General Michael Bryant admits hes still not sure what fate holds for the shelter dogs. But when a municipal ban was imposed in Kitchener-Waterloo, the pit bulls in the kennels there were put to sleep.
BTW.. this thread is GETTING HUGE!!! :D
my dog is harnessed, never needed a muzzle, however should that come into play, yes, my dog will be muzzled, yes i will pay the fine, yes i will put my dog down immediately, yes to all those questions, regardless of the freaking breed, if i had a ****-zu and it bit me, i'd be putting it down to, regardless of breed, i support, and have always supported the by-laws Bob, what your telling me to do, myself and responsible owners have been doing for YEARS, this is all nothing new to us, we are the ambassadors to this breed, we try to convery a sence of saftey to all others when were walking our dogs, however all of this means nothing really anyways. the bad apples will find another dog to turn to, and then it will get banned, then another, and it banned, and yet another.
as for the snapper bob it's the exact same. you have the supposed "pit bull" of the turtle world sure, it might not leave your house but perhaps one of your kids goes to stick a finger in the cage to touch it? then what your 7 yr old is missing an index finger because you decided to bring a wild animal into your house? and by wild i mean untameable, or what if it gets out of its cage, or what if... you get the picture here yet bob? lots of "what ifs" yeah what if my dog got off it's leesh, yeah what iff my dog escaped the back yard, yeah lots of "what ifs" there to...
you think your the exception, because you think your a responsible owner? like i said start liscences to own dogs, but don't ban them
Josh
the only reason its getting big is because only like 10 people are chatting here lol, should just move it to a chat room or somthing lol
Josh
Thats why my animals are behind lock and key.. and each cage has a lock in it also...
Would you keep your dog in a locked kennel at all times?
matter of fact, my house is a locked kennel lol, everything is locked, when either in, or out of the house so yes, percautions are always in effect Bob...i m beggining to think there isnt a right or wrong here, but simply a misunderstanding, we find ourselves in agreement more and more.but what i think some people need to admit, is that perhaps they are generalizing and accuseing an innocent breed here, for the actions of a few dozen "mutts"
Josh
here i got somthing for you all speacially for you Bob since you were attacked
http://members.aol.com/radogz/find.html
find the American Pit bull Terrier
So you have a "right" to walk down the street?! Okay why shouldn`t I have the right to walk down the street WITH my dog? what makes your rights more important than mine?
I think we all need to learn to "agree to disagree" i myself am at the forfront of opposing this ban, and I realize, no matter how much facts, or valid points, or views are presented, we all have closed minds to that wich we feel is wrong, and will never see the other side, i'll admit alot of us are trying to see the other side, and albeit we do see the otherside, but still beleive its wrong, myself included, there for, i have presented all of my facts, knowledge, opinions, etc but alas, thats all i can do, there for, i am stepping back from this conversation, hoping that Onatrians make the appropriate choice, and head back to the world of Herps were for some reason, all our views are the same, a pitty we cant defend all animals equally, the way we do herps!
Peace!
Josh
crucified
10-19-04, 04:28 PM
for all of you Pit Bull-haters... how many of you have actually had the privilege (and yes i do mean privelege.. and i hope i spelt it right too.. ha) to actually work with such a great and wonderful breed (and yes i do mean great and wonderful) such as the bully breeds... cuz how can you make remarks about what you have heard in the media... are you 100% sure that EVERY attack claimed to be a Pit Bull actually a Pit Bull? they never post pictures in the papers or show the actually dog that attacked on the news either.... so how can you k now for sure its not a mistake of breed? it happens alot...
try this game..http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html
and if any of you haters find the apbt on the first try then that is (pit)bullsh*t...
www.understand-a-bull.com
learn about the breed.. understand them..
dont point fingers at stuff you dont know..
enjoy..
HeatherRose
10-19-04, 06:20 PM
Cool game...it took me 11 tries to recognize the pitbull, and even then I wasn't sure. And I've spent countless hours around pitbulls at friends' houses and at the barn I used to work at.
I recommend the video Matt_K posted above as well...
I'd also like to mention that I think Marisa made some excellent points in her post a page or so back...
I've followed the thread in it's entirety, and that's all I have to say so far, other than I'm sick of hearing about it ;) :p
My heart goes out to all of the responsible animal owners around the world, however.
I'm done.
1st try, found it... I wonder why.....
Tim and Julie B
10-19-04, 09:35 PM
Ken, not once did I say YOU were ignorant!!!!!!!! I did use the word (what, 5 times?) in reference to the train of thought that allows something to be made invisible instead of finding solutions. I really can't believe you have turned my posts into something personal, against you, when I clearly have not. I have been more than fair in all my posts, even clearly stating that they are not from a biased point of view. I have also, on several points, agreed with the thoughts of those AGAINST this possible ban. I don't see what I've done to be singled out by you, but, whatever. Send me a pm if you don't think I should voice my own opinion. Everyone is enjoying the debate, not taking it personal.
Anyways, clearly some are on one side of the kennel, and some are on the other. I don't think I will add to this thread anymore, as it has been fun and long, unless I can finish my research before it (the thread) gets closed :D and share it with you all. I want people who have owned bad dogs to be punished, never allowing them to have another pet. I want vicious dogs put down. I don't want good dogs to be penalized when they haven't done anything wrong. I don't want good pet owners to be prevented from keeping the animals they love and care for. Enough said. If anyone wants to talk to me outside the thread, that's great. Pm me or email me. Been fun. When they throw the ban out the window, I'll be back to say HURRAY!!!:D
Julie
Artemis
10-19-04, 10:48 PM
wow.
crucified
10-19-04, 11:04 PM
http://www.dogwatch.net/fight_ontario_ban/michael_bryant.html
BWSmith
10-20-04, 08:28 AM
Pro-Pitbull and Anti-Pitbull arguments aside.
To those that appose the ban ............................... what did you do to try to stop it?
My feeling is that if they are passing unfair legislation, it your duty to oppose it and do something about it. If you do not, then you have no right to complain.
Even laws that seem so rediculous that you think they cannot possibly pass, need to be opposed. i will give you an example here in Atlanta. They proposed a 9 month period where Christmas Lights were illegal. From Feb 1 - Oct 31, no lights. Even if they are part of the permenant decor of a resturant or the like. Everyone laughed it off. With no opposition, it passed. And hundreds of individuals and businesses got fined on a PER BULB BASIS. It was a rediculous law proposed by a crackpot. But noone thought it stood a chance, so noone opposed it.
I wrote emails and letters well before it had reached this point.
They claim emails in favor of the ban were enough to propose it, yet made hardly any mention of emails AGAINST the ban. They even seem to be ignoring the advice of many Ontario vets, who are against the idea completly.
If a government is not taking expert opinions (in this case vets in ontario) then I am sad to say they probably ignored every normal person who bothered to try and oppose it too.
It's really unfortuante. But the bottom line is something DID have to be done, but hopefully it will be more on the side of tougher laws and more education for dog owners, rather than an all out ban.
Marisa
Marisa??? U okay??? LOL I just see "I" in two of yer posts :)
Okay.. nm.. now i see yer post :)
Tim and Julie B
10-20-04, 02:25 PM
Hey if any of you Ontario people post an email address or a place to write to, I am sure a few of us will gladly write a letter.
TB
Yeah I guess I hit the submit button too many times and too early! lol
Marisa
crucified
10-20-04, 04:25 PM
BWsmith
i have have written numberous emails to bryant. mcguinty and local mpps... pretty much daily until i get a response..
and will be attending rallys held..
and ppl against the ban that wants all the email addresses to mail possitive pit comments to.. just pm me and i'll send you the whole list of over 50 emails to contact...
SaIiLdVaEnR
10-20-04, 04:43 PM
What makes things worse now is I read that two pits were walking unattended and attacked a man and his cocker spanial. Both will survive, but suffered minor injuries. Not the publicity they need.
Aidan
RepTylE
10-20-04, 04:53 PM
Just checking in to get a page count on this topic, seems to be slowing down some.
This just is not boading well for Pitt owners... more bad apples:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/10/22/679909.html
Pit bull kills Chihuahua
A TINY Mexican Chihuahua named Teek-Teek was shaken to death in the jaws of pit bull named Vice yesterday. The dead dog was attacked before 7 p.m. on Gilbert Ave., near St. Clair Ave. and Caledonia Rd., as owner Cecilia Gomes took it for a walk
Of course the Pitts were OFF LEASH... uggg.. Im sure this makes all you responsible owners stomachs feel sick...
zappaguy
10-22-04, 10:25 AM
i have a solution...since there has been a lot of replys thats its not the breed its the owners i say ban the owners and or put them down...lmao..but it really isin't funny anymore.
It's not good for the proposed ban either that MANY Canadian vets, including one who is president of the American college of veterinary behaviourists accourding to the paper, and a local vet in Thornhill Ontario, are saying this ban is NOT a good idea nor is it the proper solution.
Article:
http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/newscentre/erabanner/story/2288462p-2652188c.html
This is the same point and sentiment of almost every vet that has had a word in print since this all came up. If they will not be considered experts on this issue, who then?
Marisa
I'd also like to add this points from the article from those who didn't click on the link
""Costs to enforce could greatly exceed the limited revenues municipalities would generate through related fines and licencing," Mr. Anderson said. " (President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Roger Anderson )
And
"Mr. Landsberg, who will also meet with the attorney general this week, said the American college of veterinary behaviourists has other questions about the proposed legislation.
"If a dog is going to protect your household, that's one of the dog's roles if someone comes on to the property. Is a dog who is threatened allowed to defend itself? And what about the play biting of young dogs; can that be reported to the government?
"My biggest concern is someone who is fearful of animals, not fond of animals, would be able to report incidents that really aren't of any danger or any concerns. Who is going to evaluate these reports?"
These are GOOD questions that they seemed to have pushed aside and even ignored to try and clean up a problem quick. It's sad really.
Marisa
Invictus
10-23-04, 10:26 AM
You don't think vets are biased? No pit bulls means less animals coming to the vet. You don't think vets have a vested interest in keeping the pet population high? Come on, why doesn't anybody consider the source anymore?
Ken, I somewhat agree and disagree.. I think one of the reasons why pits are banned is because of the ignorant owners. I highly doubt many vets even see a pitbull for any kind of treatment (including vaccines and spay/neutering) unless its to be euthanized. But then again, vets do make money off putting them down..
I think the whole pitt situation just went completely out of control. They have become terrors. Now, there are responsible owners but you guys are outnumbered grossly by idiots. Your enemy isnt the people banning pitts, it's the idiots that let this situation get so bad in the first place.
Yeah why dosen't anyone consider the source. Why would Bryant listen to the people who know absolutly nothing about them as opposed to listening to the vets, who know enough about them and some actually own them.
"I highly doubt many vets even see a pitbull for any kind of treatment (including vaccines and spay/neutering) unless its to be euthanized"
Why would u say that? Makes no sense whatsoever. Do u think they are treated any differently then any other dog. Vets will also be one of the first professionals to tell u that it is not the breed, but lets believe the people who know nothing about them.
Uhhhhh, Yes Beagle, I do think they are treated differently. You misunderstood. It's not the vets REFUSAL to see pitts, its the neglegent owners not taking them to SEE the vet.
The whole reason pitts are banned is animal cruelty. It's cruel to allow them to run free, terrorize other dogs and people and then have them put down due to the idiotic owners. I highly doubt these owners take them for vet visits.
I highly doubt ONE breed ban would put down a vet business! LOL.
This is a president of a prestigious club. I doubt the low profits from treating pit bulls is influencing his opinion. But o.k.
If he is not a good enough source then exactly who IS?
He is not only a local Thornhill Vet, but also the PRESIDENT of the American college of Veterinary Behaviourists.
So I guess he is not a good enough source for you Ken. LMAO
How about Mr Roger Anderson who is the President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario?
If those "sources" aren't good enough for you, I am afriad none will be.
Marisa
Qoute from the website of American College of Vet Behaviourists.
"The organization which was established to set the standards for this high level of recognition is the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB). The ACVB was incorporated as a 501(c)3 organization in 1993, at the same time it was recognized by the American Board of Veterinary Specialists (ABVS) of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) as the official certifying organization for veterinary behavioral specialists. The ABVS recognizes 23 different veterinary specialties, from internal medicine to pathology, from ophthalmology to microbiology. The ACVB is proud to be included with experts in so many diverse specialties of veterinary medicine.
The primary objectives of the ACVB are to advance veterinary behavioral science, increase the competency of those who practice in this field, and protect and serve the public by:
Establishing guidelines for postdoctoral education and experience prerequisite to certification in the specialty of behavior.
Examining and certifying veterinarians as specialists in behavior to serve the public by providing expert care for animals with behavioral problems.
Providing leadership and expertise to the veterinary profession in behavioral therapy, psychological well-being and welfare of animals, and other appropriate areas of animal behavior.
Encouraging research and other contributions to knowledge relating to etiology, diagnosis, therapy, prevention, and control of behavior problems, and promoting communication and dissemination of this knowledge. "
I guess they are a terrible source. LOL. Sorry I just don't understand what will be enough for people. To claim THIS as a bad source, or one that is against the ban because they are afriad in a drop in profits is absolutly non-founded. Like I said, if THIS source and the President of Municipalities isn't enough of a source, then no one will be for supporters of this ban which shows how little compromising that side is willing to do, while opponents have already agreed to muzzels, no public parks, and spaying for all Pits. It's sad really as that means nothing will change the minds of some people.
Marisa
Marisa, you miss the point that even if everyone was told to muzzle, spay/neuter their pits most wouldn't, and until they did the attacks would continue. You keep looking at responsible pit owners, which is fine. But consider how many exhist (dont start naming people on this site, thats such an insignificant number) compared to how many irresponsible owners. Nobody has ruined the opprotunity to keep pits more than the idiot kids that can't understand the potential dangers involved with ANY dog; and just let theirs run free, or better yet, train it to attack. It's unfortunate when people see an animal as a status symbol, and not a pet.
No, I agree with you V.hb
I was making those points because it seems no matter who in the animal world is against the ban, no matter how many credintials they have, someone still claims they are "not a good source" and it seems that no one wants to listen to another side of this ban.
YES they are a problem.
Yes the problem is because of idiot owners.
YES they need to do something.
But my point was, many many people, including many experts are telling Ontario an all out ban is NOT the way to go. If we don't listen to vets, behaviour experts etc on this issue and the government does what it wants, then whats next? If those people aren't experts then who? Why would they not listen to the advice of people who work with animals everyday? Will they do this to reptiles even those well known herpetoligists would be speaking against it? The government is not an expert in this situation. People who do not own Pitt Bulls are not experts here. Everyday Joes are NOT experts, that includes all of us here. But many many sources voicing their concerns ARE experts in the field, but are being equally ignored by Ontario.
It's troublesome.
Marisa
Just because I know that 75% of the people reading this thread WONT go to links posted.. Here's some interesting stuff..
The claim: "I am convinced that pit bulls are ticking time bombs. I am convinced that they are inherently dangerous animals." - Michael Bryant
Response: The United States Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed. All of the experts support this view - experts that Michael Bryant refused to include in his round table discussions. Why is Michael Bryant manipulating the truth to make one group of dogs look like monsters?
The claim: "... a neighbouring pit bull knock[ed] her fence over and a 150 pound beast charged her kids." - Michael Bryant
Response: 'Pit bulls' do not exceed 100 pounds - most are in the 40-80 pounds range. In other words, Michael Bryant did not even use real 'pit bull' examples for his news conference. This proves the fears of pet owners are valid - any shorthaired, medium-to-large sized cross bred dog cannot be distinguished from 'pit bull' crosses and will be affected by this ban. This would include most boxer crosses, many labrador crosses, rhodesian ridgeback crosses, mastiff crosses ... many, many dogs.
The claim: "We also know that when you institute a pit bull ban, it does not take long to have no more pit bull problems in your jurisdiction. That was the experience in Winnipeg ..." - Michael Bryant
The response: Mr. Bryant is knowingly deceiving the people of Ontario with this statement through exclusion. Yes, by reducing the number of 'pit bulls' in Winnipeg the government significantly cut the number of 'pit bull' incidents. However, a critical point is excluded. In the four years that immediately followed the 'pit bull' ban the overall number of bites in the city of Winnipeg went up.
The real numbers are this: in Winnipeg the overall number of bites in 1990 (the year when the ban was introduced) was 214 compared to 275, 264, 256, and 301 for the years of 1991-1994. More importantly, Winnipeg's statistics show a sharp increase in bites by two specific breeds that began in 1991 - immediately after the ban was implemented.
The claim: "The bull terrier is not captured. It is not a pit bull. Boxers are ugly dogs too [laughter]. I boxed for years, so I can say that and I'm showing it right now. So no, Don Cherry's dog is safe [laughter]. Which means I am too [laughter]." - Michael Bryant
Response: Again, the Attorney General demostrates his ignorance. Don Cherry's new dog is no longer a Bull Terrier - it is an American Staffordshire Terrier, one of the proposed breeds that will be banned if Bryant's law is passed. And Don Cherry's daughter owns Staffordshire Bull Terriers, yet another breed on Michael Bryant's hit list.
If you WOULD Like to see the site that this came from, you can find it HERE (http://www.dogwatch.net/fight_ontario_ban/michael_bryant.html)
Yeah but those sources won't be good enough for the supporters of this ban. No one is good enough as a source I guess unless it's themselves and their own opinions.
They will also say all those facts are wrong, and that somehow someone counted the dog bites in Winnipeg wrong. And then go on to claim Byrant has been studying dog behaviour and bite statistic for the past decades. LMAO. He is apparently the only "expert" the public is willing to listen too.
It won't end. We will have to hope the "knower of everything dog" Mr Bryant will see the light since he is Ontario's new dog expert, as we all know vets apprently know nothing and no one will listen to them or the municipalities who have no idea who is paying for all this enforcement.
Marisa
Sorry but Dog watch is obviously an incredibly biased site. Most of the so called sources presented on both sides of the argument are absolutely worthless. So far the only scientific study I've seen that holds water is the CDC report. And as I've stated before it's recommendations are pretty even handed. Most of the rest of the so called evidence on both sides of the debate are absolute junk.
Of COURSE its biased! It's from the side AGAINST the ban, just like websites FOR the ban are biased in their view.
Just like HIS comments! LMAO
If the sides weren't biased they wouldn't be SIDES! We would just all agree! LMAO
This is not a problem based on facts because there really aren't enough of them, even from the CDC, it a problem based on opinions and what should be *expert* opinion. Not on a politician saying what HE thinks are facts. Experts in the field need to be allowed to review the CDC reports, public interest reports such as how many Pitt Bulls are out there, what type of owners are majority, what each side is willing to compromise on, etc. Not just some politician getting favorable emails and jumping on it. Then the experts need to be LISTENED too! Experts being vets, and people in animal behaviour sectors, municipality sectors, etc.
So far the only ones agreeing with this ban publicly are the politician, and members of the public. These are NOT experts and should not be making a choice based on feelings, government, or anything else. Countless animal experts in Ontario are writing to papers AGAINST this ban, but are being ignored. As is the president of municipalities. Ignored.
Marisa
Invictus
10-24-04, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by marisa
[B]Yeah but those sources won't be good enough for the supporters of this ban. No one is good enough as a source I guess unless it's themselves and their own opinions.
The reason why nobody is listening to the other side is simple - the people who are against the ban are blatantly ignoring the fact that sometimes it happens to the most responsible people in the world, like my old friend. Most responsible owner in the world. Kept the dog in line, obedience training, the whole works. His pit bull attacked and mauled a kid for NO REASON, and there was NOTHING he could do to stop it. By blaming the owners as being irresponsible, you being completely ignorant of the FACTS - that pit bulls and their crosses attack people and other animals unprovoked, and in most cases, it is not the owner's fault.
The thing is, if enough of the public get behind the ban it doesn't matter what the so called experts say. People have a right to make up their minds based on what they believe, no matter how ill informed others may feel that point of view is. Right now it seems like the majority want pits banned. So be it. That's the way our democracy works.
RFB,
yer right... if the general public wants the ban... which seems to be... so be it...
There was another attack today.. This time, it wasn't a Pit Bull.. Instead it was a Rotti.. I wouldn't have posted about it had I not found something funny about the situation...
In the recent weeks everytime there was a Pit attack, it was ALL over the news, on every channel and on the front page of the paper.. Even on the front page of Toronto's News Website www.pulse24.com.. Well, I just checked for the story on today's attack, guess what?? It's not on there.. I guess it wasn't news worthy.. I did however manage to find this about that attack on www.640Toronto.com..
A man attacked by a dog...and it wasn't a pit bull.
A 28 year old man was attacked and bitten by a rottweiler while in the Church and Wellesley area early this morning. He was rushed to hospital and is now recovering from bites to his hands. This comes just a couple of days after a protest at Queen's Park where pitbull owners rallied against the government's upcoming pitbull ban.
-Matt
Let's just ban all dogs.
I'd like cats banned as well if that's the case. Particularly males and larger sneakier breeds.
Marisa
Of course it would. Because people like you who don't like what others keep don't give a crap what other people's interests are.
If you don't like it, it shouldn't be legal.
Really sad mentality. You should hope and pray someone with your ideals doesn't come after reptiles next.
Marisa
crucified
10-25-04, 09:34 PM
you cant just go around banning everything and what you think as well.. it just doesnt work that way.. there is going to be such big conflict.. and bryant should stop trying to want what winnipeg has.. sure their pit attacks have gone down.. but other dog attacks have gone up.. ppl will just find other breeds to mess up lineage now.. and get those banned pretty soon.. especially with everyone having a bryant mentality...
i hope ppl start using labs and golden retrievers as guard dogs now and get those banned.. so now we can laugh at all those lab owners.. i wouldnt be surprised.. since labs are accounted for the highest number of attacks on humans.. they may not be as severe.. but they are.. and just last year a golden retriever mauled and killed a 7 yr old boy....
and as for the ban.. its a shame that the whole province suffers because the attacks are in toronto.. its too big of a city to have such a serious breed.. its unfortunate really..
but banning isnt the answer to anything..
especially when you tax payers see how much it'll cost annually to enforce the ban...
maybe you'll sing a diff note..
or if it gets out of hand and hits home.. then we'll see how fast you swing around in your thoughts and ideas..
why let the government take away more of our rights?
its a shame people are so ignorant and cant think for themselves but let bryant lead the way with alot of his BS and misinformation.. some attacks he described dogs that werent even pits..
www.understand-a-bull.com check it out.. learn about the breed..
i know its been said.. but it needs to be said over and over..
Where do you guys get your information??? Other dog attacks are up since the ban in Winnepeg!! And why is anyone who supports the ban ignorant? We're all just misinformed, ignorant yokels because we don't agree with you? The majority has spoken and I happen to agree with it. There are plenty of other breeds that don't pose the potential dangers that Pits do, chose one of them for a pet. And why is it that people always play the fear card. They'll be coming after your pets next, so support us now. What a load of hogwash. You can call the people that support the ban stupid, ignorant whatever you want, it really doesn't matter. Look at the scoreboard. Games over. You lost.
Lost?? I still have my Pit and will continue to, even after the 'ban'... I'll just follow the new rules.. No big deal there...
spiderlovebites
10-26-04, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by marisa
Of course it would. Because people like you who don't like what others keep don't give a crap what other people's interests are.
If you don't like it, it shouldn't be legal.
Really sad mentality. You should hope and pray someone with your ideals doesn't come after reptiles next.
Marisa
Its already happening. In Windsor pet stores are forbidden from selling inverts or reptiles/amphibians. Just cats, dogs, birds and fish. :rolleyes: Yeah. Its already started. :(
Lee
crucified
10-26-04, 08:06 PM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1098741009611
Ontario's pit bull ban defies logic
THOMAS WALKOM
In the world of government, attorneys-general are special. They are not just politicians, although they are that, too. They are also the chief law officers of the crown, charged with overseeing the judicial systems that make this country work.
They are not judges. But when they engage in the practice of making laws we expect them to be judicious to weigh the evidence before acting.
We do not expect attorneys-general to go off half-cocked. They are plenty of other ministers in any provincial or federal cabinet who can do that.
We expect attorneys-general to be logical.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Ontario's Attorney-General Michael Bryant.
His handling of the proposed province-wide pit bull ban is a classic example of how an attorney general should not act.
From the time he first began to muse about a ban in late August, there were worrying indications that he was planning to forge ahead, regardless of the facts.
Indeed, in the Star last week, Bryant accused those who disagree with him of making a "fundamentalist argument."
I don't think he meant it as a compliment.
So who are these fundamentalists? They are a broad group including scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control who have investigated the problem, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Canada Safety Council and the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association.
All argue that banning specific breeds such as pit bulls is not the best way to deal with dog bite problems. All cite evidence to back up their positions.
The Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, which represents veterinarians in this province, is not exactly an extremist organization.
But it couldn't get in to see the minister, or indeed anyone on his staff, before he made his decision 11 days ago.
"We wrote to him on Sept.15 and offered to meet," association executive director Doug Raven said yesterday. We followed up with a couple of calls to his staff who said, `We're working on it'."
The association finally did get a faxed reply from Bryant on Oct.15, the day he announced his decision.
"Unfortunately my schedule does not permit me to meet with you at this time," the letter read.
To be fair, the attorney-general did talk to some opponents of the ban, including representatives from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
But he did not appear to talk to some key "fundamentalists" including cities and jurisdictions that had once banned pit bull and either rescinded or relaxed them.
Britain, for example, banned four breeds including the pit bull in 1991. Unauthorized pit bulls were to be killed. Six years and countless court cases later, however, the British government relaxed the law to eliminate the compulsory euthanasia element, in effect giving threatened pit bulls a reprieve, albeit under considerable restrictions.
Cincinnati tried a pit bull ban for 13 years but eventually rescinded it in 1999, saying it was expensive and didn't work.
In Denver, a 15-year-old ban appears singularly ineffective. In spite of the prohibition, the city routinely rounds up and kills dozens of pit bulls annually 410 last year, according to the Rocky Mountain News.
As a result, Colorado's state government this year passed a law to prevent municipalities from outlawing specific breeds such as pit bulls ("Doggy profiling" is how Governor Bill Owens described the practice).
Bryant cites the experience of Winnipeg. It's had a pit bull ban since 1990. And it is true that the number of dog bite incidents has dropped by about one-third since the ban, from an average of 344 a year in the late 1980s to an average of 236 over the past 14 years.
But what's also true is that even before the ban, pit bulls accounted for fewer than 10 per cent of recorded dog bite incidents 28 out of 310 in 1989.
Tim Dack, chief operating officer of the city's animal services division, says dog bites have gone down in large part because the city has made an aggressive effort to license dogs, deal with strays, and educate the public.
Bryant has written that Winnipeg's experience proves pit bull owners won't turn to other dangerous dogs when the breed is banned.
That's not what Winnipeg's Dack says. He supports the ban, saying that, so far, it has led to fewer serious bites.
But he also told me that a lot of former pit bull owners appear to have turned to rottweilers and cross-rottweilers and that there has been a corresponding increase of bites from these breeds.
"We don't permit muzzled wolves on leashes in public parks," says Bryant as justification for his ban.
That's not exactly accurate either. Some people do keep wolf hybrids as pets. There's no law against it.
crucified
10-26-04, 08:07 PM
michael bryant is a piece of crap.. he is not even reading the letters...
a bunch of my friends FINALLY got responses from bryant...after sending around 100 letter each AGAINST the ban
and they all got the same generated letter back thanking them for being for the ban..
and some more info... of bryant being so full of crap..
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1098655810378
A-G met experts on pit-bull issue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pit-bull ban
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several recently-published articles and letters have said incorrectly that Attorney-General Michael Bryant has refused to meet with experts and in particular the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) with regard to the proposed ban on pit bulls. I wish to correct the record.
Since announcing the government was considering a pit-bull ban at the end of August, the Attorney-General has met with, heard from, and considered the views of a wide range of interested parties on all sides of the pit-bull debate. Bryant received and considered the OVMA's submissions and wrote to the OVMA inviting it to contact his officials for a meeting. However, their schedules did not permit an early meeting so the Attorney-General's staff and ministry officials met with them on Oct. 21.
Following all these meetings, the government has decided it will introduce a bill that, if passed, will mean a ban on pit bulls and increased restrictions on other dangerous dogs in order to protect people and make our communities safer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Zimmer, MPP, Willowdale,
Parliamentary Assistant to the Attorney-General of Ontario, Toronto
crucified
10-26-04, 08:15 PM
RFB.. as for the majority has spoken?... all i have heard is crap.. and useless knowledge on apbt that people dont know what they are talking about.. most people dont know what an apbt.. they get blamed for a lot of stuff when they arent even involved.. its pretty unfair that bryant takes a two-sided story and makes it one-sided so people stay less informed and uneducated about the whole scenario and just scares up fear into the public to side with him...its going to be a disaster if this ban kicks in.. and yes it is ignorance not understanding the breed and siding cuz the "majority" has spoken so you need to be on their side.. so much for anyone having rights.. just let the government decide.. . we all know bryant knows best.. *insert laugh here*
Yeah, looks like the majority sure is speaking..
http://www.pulse24.com/Plugins/Web_Poll/DisplayPollResults.asp?PollID=1136
Wow, now thats a significant poll. hahahahahahahaha. No information on how many votes were cast, no info on the demographic of those polled, just percentages. Now that's earth shattering information. And as far as people spouting so called crap about ABPT, I guess as long as the information is against the breed it's crap, but for this animal it's OK??? Here's an idea for you. You don't like Ontarios proposed legislation, you think the government here is run by a bunch of idiots, you think everyone who is against your four footed friend has rocks where their brain should be, well then, MOVE. Go somewhere where the people are more enlightened, where they think your faithful friend is just a loveable mutt that occasionally chews peoples faces off and every once in a while snacks on a chihuahau. Heck, move to the US where everyone has the right to carry handguns or assault weapons and you should fit in just fine. Of course I'm just a stupid, ignorant, uneducated country bumpkin who couldn't possibly have any real knowledge of what APBT are and what they can do. I can't form thoughts on my own, I have to let the government do it for me.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.