New Pit Bull dog law in Ontario

[Yogi]

If a pit bull ban goes into effect across the province but no one's there to enforce it, does it make a difference?

Not much. But in this case, that's a good thing, because the Ontario Liberals' legislation banning pit bulls, which starts taking effect today, is the most wrongheaded Grit gaffe since the federal gun registry.

Don't get us wrong: We applaud Attorney General Michael Bryant's attempt, in part of this legislation, to toughen penalties for irresponsible dog owners and breeders, who are responsible for most attacks by dogs of all breeds. This part of the crackdown is long overdue, although, as with most Liberal-launched laws, just because the maximum penalties are theoretically tougher (including a top fine of $10,000 and a possible six months in jail) doesn't mean any judge will ever impose them.

As for the centrepiece of the law, which bans pit bulls and, essentially, any dog that just looks like a pit bull, it's little more than an insult -- both to the people (and animals) it restricts and those it supposedly seeks to protect.

The slower it is implemented, then, the better.

One obvious flaw in the law is that, as the Sun's Zen Ruryk reported last week, it leaves enforcement to municipal animal control officers. And, well, let's just say there are a whole lot fewer of them in the city of Toronto (just 30) than there are pit bulls.

As of today, it is only illegal to "import" a pit bull to Ontario. Owners still have until Oct. 28 to have them spayed or neutered, and start muzzling them in public. Monitoring all that will be tough work for animal control, which must also handle all other animal complaints, supervisor Don Mitton told Ruryk -- and city officials say there are no plans to beef up the department.

Such criticism comes as no surprise, however, since virtually no one with any expertise in animals has supported this law as it now stands.

The Canadian Safety Council, the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Dog Judges Association, and a host of dog clubs and purebred dog experts have all argued against the ban, based on evidence elsewhere that breed bans don't work.

What's more, the law's description of the pit bull "breed" is so broad as to be absurd -- indeed, it's feared owners will have to prove their dog isn't a pit bull if accused.

Despite this, Dalton McGuinty's Grits seem to have sold much of the public on their bill of goods, making it seem like the problem of vicious dogs has been dealt with -- when in fact, irresponsible and criminal owners and breeders will merely move on to wreak havoc with other types of dogs.

That's called fostering a false sense of security. And we've all seen how well it's worked with guns.
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2005/08/28/1192034.html

It may be well intended, but I see a lot of flaws with this law. I tend to agree with the above editorial in that this is yet another law on the books, with not enough resources to enforce it.

[DreamLord34]

Clayton Ruby has also officially filed to take this to the supreme court of Canada to fight the bsl bs.
Even the cops here in Tillsonburg seem to not going to be enforcing it as is with London.

[Yogi]

Well, Clayton Ruby likes a lot of free media exposure. It helps advertise his law practice without having to pay for ads in the paper. Great lawyer, but he's too full of himself.

Having said that, it's the irresponsible owners that need to be targeted, and this is where the law fails. This is akin to banning alcohol in order to eliminate drunk driving.

And I don't want to see cops bogged down enforcing this law at the expense of more serious crimes. We're already short too many cops as it is.

[dusty550]

This law in my opinion is stupid, the only part I aggree with is the muzlling in public. But the real problem Is the owners.

[Mouse]

Having said that, it's the irresponsible owners that need to be targeted, and this is where the law fails. This is akin to banning alcohol in order to eliminate drunk driving.
Or take guns from responsible owners.

Don't attack the real problem, make the general public pay instead. :mad:

[Yogi]

Or take guns from responsible owners.
Yes, and the last paragraph in the piece above mentions it.

[networkguy]

Well the owners are part of the problem, the other part is the dogs. I don't believe this breed can be fully domesticated, I don't believe they are suitable as pets, and I certainly don't believe they should be available for any tom dick or harry to own. I think another way of approaching this might be to make it manditory to take a course on how to care for an animal like this, how to treat it and respect it, and the potential owners should be evaluated as to whether they are suitable or not. I am just thinking out loud here. These animals are capable of causing great harm and yes I know, I can hear people saying "but any dog is capable of causing great harm" but pit bulls are particularly equipped with incredible strong bodies and jaws of steel, they are bred for fighting in a 'pit' hence the name, and are not cuddly little cute shy dogs. I know that a dogs character does to a great extent depend on how its raised and treated by its owner, but lets not ignore the fact that these animals have a distinct nature that will always be there regardless of how they are raised.

NG

[Mouse]

You mean like a licence to own a gun??? ;)

[Yogi]

I'd like to know 4 things:

(1) How many pit bulls there are throughout Ontario

(2) How many people were harmed by pit bulls

(3) How many non pit bull breeds there are Ontario

(4) How many people were harmed by #3 above

In other words, has anyone in government or other group quantified the stats to justify this law?...or is the government just reacting to those few anectodal cases that make the 6.00 news?

[Walter]

Death Due To Ganstas..........32+

Deaths Due to Pit Bulls.........00

Of course which problem doyou think the Liberals tackle? You voted for change and you certainly got it.

[Quintin]

We're concerned about municipalities and their ability to enforce this legislation. It's quite clear this is legislation that has to be enforced at the municipal level. Down where I come from, and in fact across this province, municipalities are hard-pressed to keep animal control officers on duty any more than five days a week, eight hours a day. To have a breed ban or a vicious dog ban in general is meaningless unless you've got people out there prepared to do the hard, nasty and dirty work in terms of picking up this breed.

Also, the bill clearly provides for at least one more decade of so-called pit bulls in Ontario. We're talking about the so-called grandparenting. I understand why the government would want to include that in their legislation, but I very much want to understand how that jibes with their expression of such serious concern with this one specific breed.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the spirit of co-operation that has been offered, I seek unanimous consent to put a motion, without further debate, that when this bill is called, any time this bill is called, no party can put a motion to adjourn the House or adjourn the debate without unanimous consent.

The Speaker: The government House leader put a motion forward to have unanimous consent. Do I hear unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): You're an idiot.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member from Toronto-Danforth has used unparliamentary language. Would you stand and withdraw.

Ms Churley: I withdraw, Speaker.

[DreamLord34]

Well the owners are part of the problem, the other part is the dogs. I don't believe this breed can be fully domesticated, I don't believe they are suitable as pets, and I certainly don't believe they should be available for any tom dick or harry to own. I think another way of approaching this might be to make it manditory to take a course on how to care for an animal like this, how to treat it and respect it, and the potential owners should be evaluated as to whether they are suitable or not. I am just thinking out loud here. These animals are capable of causing great harm and yes I know, I can hear people saying "but any dog is capable of causing great harm" but pit bulls are particularly equipped with incredible strong bodies and jaws of steel, they are bred for fighting in a 'pit' hence the name, and are not cuddly little cute shy dogs. I know that a dogs character does to a great extent depend on how its raised and treated by its owner, but lets not ignore the fact that these animals have a distinct nature that will always be there regardless of how they are raised.



NG


I agree with some of the above such as the training. As for evaluating potential owners, resues do this now, not sure about the humane society, I do know they at least have to apply for one.

As for saying they're not cute & cuddley, of course you can say that if you've never lived with one or even spent time with one.
I've spent the last 5 years just about with the one in my sig. He is cute & cuddly. Whenever I sleep at his house, he HAS to cuddle with me on the couch. It's because of HOW he was raised & he was raised spoiled & raised properly. Untill you actually KNOW the breed, you can't assume everything is true.

Just like the bs about it locking it's jaw, it's impossible.
As for pits doing most harm, look at the stats, labs are higher up then pits.

[networkguy]

One doesn't need to 'know' the breed, only to 'know' that that on more then one occassion they have attacked and killed/seriously injured/maimed people. Whether they are the exception rather then rule is irrelevant, tell that to their victims and their families. It is my opinion that they are simply not suitable as pets because of their inherent aggressive nature, by this I mean, even if they are raised properly, they can still snap and attack because they are an inherently aggressive breed of dog, this is a fact, they were raised to fight in pits because they are aggressive fighting dogs and they are built for fighting.

NG

[DreamLord34]

You obviously believe anything that the media tells you. Pits do NOT snap! It's been stated repeatedly by trainers, kennel clubs & vets that it just doesn't happen.
It's bs like that, that causes all of this.
After those attacks, even though it was never reported, it was found out that someone did do something to aggrevate the dogs in some way.
Also, some of the media reported other breed attacks as being pit bull.
The media reports on it because it gets people reading the papers etc.
If a german shepard mauled someone, you think it'd be front page like pits?
Think again. It'd be suprising if they even report it because it wasn't a pit.
It has happend before.
It's people that DON'T know the breed, believe all the bs that the media spews out.
I suppose you believe that they lock their jaws too.

Even if this did stay for years to come, guess what breed will be next in the pits. Rotties, dobies, mastiffs. next thing you know, no more dogs left in the world because of BS like this.
I guarentee you, the bad owners will go to one of the afore mentions breeds.

[Yogi]

The truth of the matter is that any breed of dog can "snap" at anytime. When a dog feels threatened in any way, its only means of self defence is to bite, and bite hard.

[networkguy]

You obviously believe anything that the media tells you. Pits do NOT snap! It's been stated repeatedly by trainers, kennel clubs & vets that it just doesn't happen. Never? Ever?

It's bs like that, that causes all of this. So three is no truth to it at all? I suppose you think the papers print completely fictitous accounts?

After those attacks, even though it was never reported, it was found out that someone did do something to aggrevate the dogs in some way. So in every case the dogs were aggravated to the point of attacking? What about the little girl who was mauled to death when no one was around to aggravate the dog?

Also, some of the media reported other breed attacks as being pit bull. Of course other breeds attack, but no as often and not with the same ferociousnous or vicousness.

The media reports on it because it gets people reading the papers etc. Ok so are you saying they only report on pit bull attacks for sesationalism and to sell papers? Not perhaps becase its a real issue and people need to be aware?

If a german shepard mauled someone, you think it'd be front page like pits? If enough of them did it would, but why do you suppose they don't attack like pits? Because they are a completely different breed of dog.

Think again. It'd be suprising if they even report it because it wasn't a pit.
It has happend before.

It's people that DON'T know the breed, believe all the bs that the media spews out. Ok so where can we go to get to KNOW the breed? What difference does it make if we KNOW the breed or not, are you suggesting if we KNOW the breed they won't attack us?

I suppose you believe that they lock their jaws too. Well I recall an incident where a pit had to be shot to death because it would not let go of somone who's limb it had fixed its mouth onto.

Even if this did stay for years to come, guess what breed will be next in the pits. Rotties, dobies, mastiffs. next thing you know, no more dogs left in the world because of BS like this. Again, are you suggesting its all made up and BS, that there isn't an ounce of truth to any of it? That these dogs only attack when provoked?

I guarentee you, the bad owners will go to one of the afore mentions breeds

[smirnoff]

Well the owners are part of the problem, the other part is the dogs. I don't believe this breed can be fully domesticated, I don't believe they are suitable as pets, and I certainly don't believe they should be available for any tom dick or harry to own. I think another way of approaching this might be to make it manditory to take a course on how to care for an animal like this, how to treat it and respect it, and the potential owners should be evaluated as to whether they are suitable or not. I am just thinking out loud here. These animals are capable of causing great harm and yes I know, I can hear people saying "but any dog is capable of causing great harm" but pit bulls are particularly equipped with incredible strong bodies and jaws of steel, they are bred for fighting in a 'pit' hence the name, and are not cuddly little cute shy dogs. I know that a dogs character does to a great extent depend on how its raised and treated by its owner, but lets not ignore the fact that these animals have a distinct nature that will always be there regardless of how they are raised.

NG

the dog as you call it isn't even on the top ten list for bite attacks.
the problem is the breeders who are cross breeding the dogs with other aggersive breeds.

the pure breed is one of the most respected and well behaved out there.

the law is aimed to please a few and punish the dogs for the actions of the humans.

add to this that any dog the look likes a pit bull gets the same treatment too, wehat the hell is this do they thing it may decide is wants to be one?

this is like the law for peple who rape kids a joke, you can get much more time in jail for a first time drug offence.

to much poltics and not enough comman sense here.

[Yogi]

to much poltics and not enough comman sense here.
You hit the nail right on the head!

The Liberals want to come off as though they are doing "something". It's all about optics and media play and it's designed to mitigate the fact that they have broken pretty well every promise they ran on.

[networkguy]

You guys are overlooking the fact that people have suffered and died due to being attacked by these dogs. Can you explain away every incident and blame it on the owner? No one wants a well behaved pleasant 'pit bull' thats why we have these agressive cross breeds out there, what purpose do they serve as pets? Its seems like common sense to me that if a particular breed of dog has been responsible for a lot of attacks, whether provoked or not, they are still capable of great harm and they are unpredictable, to pass laws to protect the public.

[Yogi]

The point is that any dog can bite. As a kid, I was bitten by a St. Bernard while I was delivering newpapers on my paper route. I had delivered to this house for 2 years with no prior incident. That day, for some reason, the dog bit me. I didn't do anything to provoke that dog. In fact, it was very gentle dog with extremely responsible owners. Was it the clothing I wore that day??..how fast or slow I walked towards the front door???...how I held the paper in my hand??...who knows.

But guess what....it didn't make the news ;)

[networkguy]

Yes but you weren't mauled and you didn't die. We aren't talking about 'other dogs' we are talking about pit bulls, whom the legislation is aimed at. Of course any dog can bite, but this isn't about any dog.

NG

[Yogi]

Yes but you weren't mauled and you didn't die. We aren't talking about 'other dogs' we are talking about pit bulls, whom the legislation is aimed at. Of course any dog can bite, but this isn't about any dog.

NG
Well, that dog bit me pretty hard. I was absent from school for a good week. Any large breed of dog can inflict a ferocious bite, maul and even kill.

Btw, the shot in the butt is not pleasant lol

[DreamLord34]

That St. Bernard could have easily ripped him apart if it wanted to.
People have suffered and died from other breeds as well.
Labs are the leading breed that bites but no one cares.
It all goes back to either the owner (how the dog was raised etc) or the breeder (Back yard breeders etc).
It's not the dog's fault that a lot of humans suck.

Once the bad people can't get pits, they'll move on to rotties or dobermans or even mastiffs.
Are those dogs to blame as well?

bryant should have spent all those taxpayer dollars on gun control & maybe there wouldn't be so many gun related deaths on Toronto right now.
But no, he only wants to attack the dogs.
maybe he has a personal interest in this. He seems pretty damn biased about it since he refused to hear the other side of this. He only wanted to hear the bad side & said screw the rest.

[justabitcrazee]

I used to own a chow chow, in fact I got it when it was about 2 and had it until the dog finally passed away at teh ripe old age of 15. Now, I dont know how much you know about chow chows, but they can ba a pretty mean dog. Most of my friends were very scared of hims, as he looked like a big black lion. Even sensing their fear though, my dog never bit anyone in his old lifetime. He didnt even want to bite my sister when she was small and put vineagar in his water, or teh time she pulled his tail. He would bark, he woud growl but he would NEVER bite.

Now the question why this is? If i had of been him, i wouldnt have thought twice about biting someone. The reason that he didnt bite anyone was because he was well TRAINED. So in other words, his family (his owners), had taught him that biting was bad, just like you would teach a small child. He knew not to bite, or bark in the house. We trained our dog so that he was in OUR control, and we werent under his.

I'm just saying in all of this, that any dog can bite, if they havent been taught not to. My best friend when I was younger got her whole nose bitten off by a German Shepard that she had gotten and left untrained for 6 years. Does this mean that German Shepards should be banned? No of course not! People maybe should just learn how to train their dogs and teach them not to hurt other people unles necessesary (as a guard dog). The people who own the dogs should just teach them how to behave and then we wouldnt have this preoblem.

[Yogi]

One of my neighbours has a Newfoundlander. The thing is huge, but super gentle. Like to come up to you, lick you all over etc. but I'm sure that if I made an aggressive or sudden move, or clenched my fist like I was going to hit him, he'd tear to shreds.

[networkguy]

You guys are overlooking the fact that people have suffered and died due to being attacked by these dogs. Can you explain away every incident and blame it on the owner? No one wants a well behaved pleasant 'pit bull' thats why we have these agressive cross breeds out there, what purpose do they serve as pets? Its seems like common sense to me that if a particular breed of dog has been responsible for a lot of attacks, whether provoked or not, they are still capable of great harm and they are unpredictable, to pass laws to protect the public.

[smirnoff]

You guys are overlooking the fact that people have suffered and died due to being attacked by these dogs. Can you explain away every incident and blame it on the owner? No one wants a well behaved pleasant 'pit bull' thats why we have these agressive cross breeds out there, what purpose do they serve as pets? Its seems like common sense to me that if a particular breed of dog has been responsible for a lot of attacks, whether provoked or not, they are still capable of great harm and they are unpredictable, to pass laws to protect the public.


this is why we have the stupid law in the first place.

people don't have all the info and just see the dogs as maulers.

no one wants a well behaved pit bull dog? where did that idea come from pit bulls are one of the oldest breeds and most respected.
what happens you have is illegal breeders breed the dogs for fighting and end up selling of the dogs that aren't used for such .

the top dogs for attacks is the golden retrievers fellowed by all things our favorite pocket puddle.

should bigger dogs be watched yes but not punshed becuase they are so.
the law as it is punsish the dogs and the owners of perfectly good dogs simply because they look like pits.

its does nothing about the illegal breeders or anything to stop the breeding by them of illegal dogs.

you think this is going to fix anything?

[networkguy]

I am going by facts, events where people have been mauled or killed. Where do you get your info about retrievers being the top dog for attacking people? If enough pit bulls attack people, then something has to change. I think we have covered off the fact that owners are a large part of the problem, I think we agree on that. The owners need to be punished, yes they do, but its the dogs who actually do the attacking, lets not foget this. Its a shame when a breed like this is not raised with love and caring and abused and made into a mean animal ready to attack. I sill don't think they are suitable as pets, thats just my opinion. Laws have flaws, sure, and people will forever contest them, thats the beauty of a democracy. In the meantime, lets try and remember the victims, and yes, the dogs are sometimes the victims too, who can't help but do what, in some cases, comes naturally to them.

I think we can agree to disagree, we have different viewpoints, no one is wrong or right here, we respect eachothers points of view.

Nuff said. And I'm not trying to have the last word here eather ;D

NG

[justabitcrazee]

*steals the last word*

*tee Hee - runs away*

[smirnoff]

i agree we have different views and don't think that i have less respect for you becuase of that.

my issue is that your arguement is not based on fact.

"Pit bull" is a bit of a misnomer. There really is no such breed. Generally, "pit bulls" are a cross between a "bulldog" breed and a terrier. They are also known as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

Potentially aggressive breeds:

Llasa Apso: can be cranky with kids

Toy poodles: bite out of self defense

Dachsunds: not very patient

Rhodesian Ridgebacks: very dominant breed

Miniature Pinschers: "big dog" mindset in little body

Pekinese: intolerant

Chihuahuas: prefer adults, not tolerant of kids

Chow Chow: one-person dogs, bite without warning

Giant Schnauzers: very dominant breed, will even challenge adults

Old English Sheep Dog: very protective of owner

****er Spaniel: very protective of owner

Rottweilers: very protective

Typically gentle breeds that have "bad boy" reputations:

German Shepherd: great with kids

Bulldog: gentle, playful

Rottweilers: can be gentle, affectionate

Great Danes: gentle, affectionate

Boxers: good with kids

Mastiffs-very docile

like us most "pit bulls" are not aggressive by nature. They tend to be gentle, playful and loving. However, there are those that have been bred and trained to be aggressive. Even then, they are more aggressive toward other animals, not people.

Often, aggressive "pit bulls" have been abused and/or neglected. These are VERY dangerous.

Most of us don't really think about getting bitten or attacked by dogs in our daily lives, but it can happen a lot more often, and quicker, than you'd ever think. Part of the problem is that we are led to believe that there are certain types of dogs that are extremely aggressive and vicious (like pit bulls) when, in fact, some of the breeds that are more likely to bite are those you'd never think about, like poodles or terriers.

About 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. One million of those need medical attention. About 750,000 children are bitten by dogs each year; in most cases, these bites are from "familiar dogs" -- not strays. Approximately 12 people die each year from dog bites

of the one million only a small fraction of these are large dogs attacks and those but pitbulls rank way down below the agressive dogs mentioned above.

too be sure large dogs can do more damage but there hardly the only dangerous ones.

pitbulls sadly sell papers right now and when a Pekingese rips half the face of a child in regina or the baby get killed by the same breed we barely hear about it.

we keep punishing the animals for the lack of responsablty by some humans.
next year it will be something else and we will have forgotten about the pits and all the ones killed becuase of the stupid law.

[DreamLord34]

but its the dogs who actually do the attacking, lets not forget this.

That happens because of humans, NOT because it's in their nature. Your "facts' are myths.

READ up on this (http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html) & learn about the REAL pit bull.
Aggression is NOT a natural occurance. It' has to do with breeding, upbringing, training etc.

Learn about the TRUE pit before you throw around your so-called "facts".

On a side note, the pit in my sig link is a pure rednose. He was spoiled from day 1 & loved & cared for & is one of the best dogs around. The only time he may seem aggressive is when someone either hits me or his owner, other then that, he's scared & tries to hide.

[Walter]

I still stick to my original premise......

# of deaths by Pit Bulls 2005............0

# of shootings by gangstas 2005.......32+

[DreamLord34]

It makes you wonder which issue is more important to Bryant. Guns or pit bulls.
Judging by what has happend since the bsl was started, I would say he doesn't care enough about gun violence.
Just wanted to point out, the municipalities have no idea who or even how the bsl will be enforced especially since there's no added money for them to do so. They also don't have the training.

[smirnoff]

I still stick to my original premise......

# of deaths by Pit Bulls 2005............0

# of shootings by gangstas 2005.......32+

what he said!

[Tim]

let's ban gangstas.

[reiver]

let's ban gangstas.

and trailer trash... but then we'd probably need an entire province to house them.

[Blueharp]

A couple of my favourite quotes on the subject:


"Anyone remember the story (Australia I think), when a pit bull ripped off hubby's arms? Wife refused to put her babies down and a week later ended up in the bed next to him in hospital.

Until we can breed responsible owners, ban the pit bulls."



"Maybe people should just carry baseball bats around with them. That way if a dog comes and attacks them *crack* there goes the dog's skull. But society is so f'ed up that the person defending themselves would get charged with animal cruelty. Gotta love it."

[Walter]

and trailer trash... but then we'd probably need an entire province to house them.

Hold on now.....you are being intolerant.

So called "trailer trash" should be given the same level of respect as other minority groups. To not do so makes a person a bigot.

[Walter]

A couple of my favourite quotes on the subject:


"Anyone remember the story (Australia I think), when a pit bull ripped off hubby's arms? Wife refused to put her babies down and a week later ended up in the bed next to him in hospital.

Until we can breed responsible owners, ban the pit bulls."



"Maybe people should just carry baseball bats around with them. That way if a dog comes and attacks them *crack* there goes the dog's skull. But society is so f'ed up that the person defending themselves would get charged with animal cruelty. Gotta love it."

Under this new legislation please define "pit bull."

[DreamLord34]

Under this new legislation please define "pit bull."


hehe...and GL with that!
How does one define a breed that technicly does not exist?
AKC doesn't recongnize it nor do others.
ASAIK, the breed isn't registered at all so technicly doesn't exist.


As for the baseball bat comment, people would use it to hit dogs that ARE NOT attacking but just come towards them. This BSl has so many people freaked out that they can't think for themselves!
I've heard of people telling someone with a pug to muzzle his pit bull accusing the pug of being one. Same with another guy walking his great dane. And yes, these did & still do happen.

[Quintin]

The problem as I see it........you don't know if the owner is a good owner or not.

[Blueharp]

Under this new legislation please define "pit bull."

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp#TOC_15

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Source/Statutes/English/2005/S05002_e.htm

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp#TOC

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/

[Tim]

Hold on now.....you are being intolerant.

So called "trailer trash" should be given the same level of respect as other minority groups. To not do so makes a person a bigot.
so desperate to make quip about minority groups you missed the joke.
;)

[Law]

It makes you wonder which issue is more important to Bryant. Guns or pit bulls.



I think both are, he was under pressure by the public to do something about all the maulings by dogs. I see you have been posting the regular dogs can do no evil.

Face it, dogs are animals and can be aggressive, no thats no myth.

Just anyone can have a dog and many irresponsible people have dogs, some want an aggressive dog , some just dont know how to properly take care of a dog and prevent an attack.

I dont agree with the ban completely , i feel owners should be liable for any attack done by their dog. If an attack occurs, put the dog down, and depending on the damage cause , give a big fine or a jail term.

[Walter]

I think both are, he was under pressure by the public to do something about all the maulings by dogs. I see you have been posting the regular dogs can do no evil.

Face it, dogs are animals and can be aggressive, no thats no myth.

The same can be said about people and there are many laws in place to curb this aggressiveness but it doesn't seem to stop violence.
Just anyone can have a dog and many irresponsible people have dogs, some want an aggressive dog , some just dont know how to properly take care of a dog and prevent an attack.

I dont agree with the ban completely , i feel owners should be liable for any attack done by their dog. If an attack occurs, put the dog down, and depending on the damage cause , give a big fine or a jail term...

[DreamLord34]

I think both are, he was under pressure by the public to do something about all the maulings by dogs.


Ya & because he went after pits, how many people died from gun violence at the same time?
Death by pit is low to non existant
death by gun violence, what 32 or so now since the BSL was brought about.

[Taz]

You guys are overlooking the fact that people have suffered and died due to being attacked by these dogs. Can you explain away every incident and blame it on the owner? No one wants a well behaved pleasant 'pit bull' thats why we have these agressive cross breeds out there, what purpose do they serve as pets? Its seems like common sense to me that if a particular breed of dog has been responsible for a lot of attacks, whether provoked or not, they are still capable of great harm and they are unpredictable, to pass laws to protect the public.

People have suffered more from the bites of Labs, German Sheppards, Dobe's than from "Pit's". I've owned many dogs through my life including a Staffordshire Terrier or "Pit Bull", a Rotti, a pair of Sheps and several labs. The only dog I've ever had that bit someone was a Lab. Pit bulls are no more dangerous( as a breed) than Rotti's, Dobes, Mastiff, or Sheppards. Any dog that is not properly trained with an owner that is not properly educated
could be classed as potentially dangerous..


Some info on dog bites

http://www.dogexpert.com/HomePage/DogBiteStatistics.html?HURT911.org


Although pit bull mixes and Rottweillers are most likely to kill and seriously maim, fatal attacks since 1975 have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

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



http://www.nafacares.org/Dog%20Stuff/dog_bite_statistics.htm




"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (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.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.)



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


http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4600/db19mk.th.jpg (http://img391.imageshack.us/my.php?image=db19mk.jpg)

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4926/db21vq.th.jpg (http://img391.imageshack.us/my.php?image=db21vq.jpg)

[Taz]

Pit bull attack stats may surprise you

Thursday, July 07, 2005


Last week, I received a phone call from someone wanting to know the truth behind pit bull statistics. And, on June 12, in a letter to the editor, a reader wrote about his fear of pit bulls. He said, "These dogs have killed more than 100 individuals in the past five years. If an automobile had a defect that killed 100 people, there would be a public outcry."

After you start looking a little deeper, the numbers tell a different tale. According to "Fatal Dog Attacks, the Stories Behind the Statistics," by Karen Delise there were 431 deaths because of dog attacks in the years from 1965 to 2001. Children 12 younger were the victims in 79 percent of the fatal attacks.

In 37 years, 342 children were killed by dogs, an average of about nine children a year. Shockingly, approximately three children are killed each day, or 1,100 per year, by their parents. Delise notes that "A child in the United States is over 100 times more likely to be killed by his or her parent or caretaker than by a dog."

Even more surprising is that approximately 50 infants die each year from broken baby cribs, and 250 newborns die at the hands of their parents or guardians. In comparison, two infants, on average, die a year from dog attacks.

Pit bull and pit mixes account for 21 percent of all human fatalities, while mixed breed dogs account for 16 percent and other nonspecified breeds, 15 percent. Delise's study demonstrates that the breed of dog should not be the sole factor by which an attack is judged. Other factors include inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, temperament, surgical sterilization, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, size and age, timing, and the physical condition and the size of dog.

Of the 28 dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000 and 2001, 26 were males and two were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were sexually intact; he reproductive status of the remaining five male dogs could not be determined. The male dog that killed the 12-year-old boy in San Francisco on June 3 was protecting his female dog in heat.

An owner's understanding of dogs, supervision of dogs and children, sterilization and chaining as a primary means of confinement all can play roles in attacks. Whether dogs were obtained for protection, guarding, fighting, are newly acquired or not properly introduced to newborns are among other issues.

In the end, many factors contribute to dog attacks. A popular slogan seems to capture the sentiment perfectly, "Judge the Deed Not the Breed."


By Laura Maloney

http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/t_judge.htm

[Taz]

http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/texasbite.htm

As you can see their are many breeds that could be considered just as "dangerous" as the "Pit Bull"

[DreamLord34]

Good job, Taz!

[Rustynut]

Death Due To Ganstas..........32+

Deaths Due to Pit Bulls.........00

Of course which problem doyou think the Liberals tackle? You voted for change and you certainly got it.
Good point Walter! :eri:

To follow typical government response to issues like that, do we now as Parents, hog tie and muzzle our teens that may be come Gangstas? Seems like the whiners and the government would like to see it so.

No amount of predjudice with regards to animals of any kind will ever change the fact that there will be dog bites. Any one foolish enough to think they can change that need to wake up. Dogs are the result of their training and care nothing more, if they are permitted to think for one moment they can possibly lead the pack then they will attempt it even biting their owners that let them believe that. It is all in training both for the owners and the animal.

Further to that, the same can be said for your gangsta's, too bad the rod was spared now the general population has to deal with them. That is what the permissive society reaps for their hard work undermining family values. :mbx:

[Just Doug1]

What about a pit pull that "moo's" when it wants a Scooby snack?

It's hilarious and the dog is an absolute angel.

[I LIKE EGGS]

let's ban gangstas.

Either that or muzzle and neuter them:hst:

[Exmortis]

Deaths Due to Pit Bulls.........00.

What about what happened to the 8 years old girl from Stouffville in 1998? Ya, she got killed by a pit bull so the count is not 0.

Anyway, it looks like owners of dangerous dogs will not need provincial legislation. From CBC:


In March 2004, a Calgary man found himself without home insurance when his insurance company decided it would no longer cover people who kept Rottweilers, German shepherds, pit bulls or Doberman pinschers. Allstate said even a mongrel with any of those bloodlines is considered unacceptable.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says it's a growing trend in the industry.

Your insurance company will get you instead.

[I LIKE EGGS]

What about what happened to the 8 years old girl from Stouffville in 1998? Ya, she got killed by a pit bull so the count is not 0.


Actually Walter's unedited quote was


I still stick to my original premise......

# of deaths by Pit Bulls 2005............0

# of shootings by gangstas 2005.......32+

Your case is 8 years earlier. Oops, 7 years.

[Quintin]

Am i missing something:
In 5 years 100 are killed by pit bulls or 20 per year by one breed
In 37 years 431 Deaths by VARIOUS breeds or 11.68 killed by VARIOUS BREEDs brings this ratio per breed down even lower....so given this article it backs up the claim of Pit Bulls.


Pit bull attack stats may surprise you

Thursday, July 07, 2005


Last week, I received a phone call from someone wanting to know the truth behind pit bull statistics. And, on June 12, in a letter to the editor, a reader wrote about his fear of pit bulls. He said, "These dogs have killed more than 100 individuals in the past five years. If an automobile had a defect that killed 100 people, there would be a public outcry."

After you start looking a little deeper, the numbers tell a different tale. According to "Fatal Dog Attacks, the Stories Behind the Statistics," by Karen Delise there were 431 deaths because of dog attacks in the years from 1965 to 2001. Children 12 younger were the victims in 79 percent of the fatal attacks.

In 37 years, 342 children were killed by dogs, an average of about nine children a year. Shockingly, approximately three children are killed each day, or 1,100 per year, by their parents. Delise notes that "A child in the United States is over 100 times more likely to be killed by his or her parent or caretaker than by a dog."

Even more surprising is that approximately 50 infants die each year from broken baby cribs, and 250 newborns die at the hands of their parents or guardians. In comparison, two infants, on average, die a year from dog attacks.

Pit bull and pit mixes account for 21 percent of all human fatalities, while mixed breed dogs account for 16 percent and other nonspecified breeds, 15 percent. Delise's study demonstrates that the breed of dog should not be the sole factor by which an attack is judged. Other factors include inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, temperament, surgical sterilization, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, size and age, timing, and the physical condition and the size of dog.

Of the 28 dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000 and 2001, 26 were males and two were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were sexually intact; he reproductive status of the remaining five male dogs could not be determined. The male dog that killed the 12-year-old boy in San Francisco on June 3 was protecting his female dog in heat.

An owner's understanding of dogs, supervision of dogs and children, sterilization and chaining as a primary means of confinement all can play roles in attacks. Whether dogs were obtained for protection, guarding, fighting, are newly acquired or not properly introduced to newborns are among other issues.

In the end, many factors contribute to dog attacks. A popular slogan seems to capture the sentiment perfectly, "Judge the Deed Not the Breed."


By Laura Maloney

http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/t_judge.htm

[Taz]

Am i missing something:
In 5 years 100 are killed by pit bulls or 20 per year by one breed
In 37 years 431 Deaths by VARIOUS breeds or 11.68 killed by VARIOUS BREEDs brings this ratio per breed down even lower....so given this article it backs up the claim of Pit Bulls.


Your missing the point, the 100 people killed in 5 years was a claim made to the author there is no link to facts of that statement.

The point
Delise's study demonstrates that the breed of dog should not be the sole factor by which an attack is judged. Other factors include inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, temperament, surgical sterilization, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, size and age, timing, and the physical condition and the size of dog.

The article tells you that kids are more likely to be killed by their own parents than by any breed of dog.
If you read this
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/texasbite.htm

You will see that other breeds bite or attack more often than pitbulls

[DreamLord34]

If you read this
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/texasbite.htm

You will see that other breeds bite or attack more often than pitbulls

Ya, try telling that to Bryant & see if he'll listen to you.
Guarenteed he won't.

[Quintin]

Any articles from Ontario about Ontario stats?


Your missing the point, the 100 people killed in 5 years was a claim made to the author there is no link to facts of that statement.

The point
Delise's study demonstrates that the breed of dog should not be the sole factor by which an attack is judged. Other factors include inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, temperament, surgical sterilization, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, size and age, timing, and the physical condition and the size of dog.

The article tells you that kids are more likely to be killed by their own parents than by any breed of dog.
If you read this
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/texasbite.htm

You will see that other breeds bite or attack more often than pitbulls

[Yogi]

Dogs bite, cats bite, gerbils bite, snakes bite....

What are we gonna do??...ban them all? :hst:

[Mouse]

Just the ones that are the best at what they do.

Bite.

But usually at someone's command (or training).

[Quintin]

Dogs bite, cats bite, gerbils bite, snakes bite....

What are we gonna do??...ban them all? :hst:
Toddlers usually bite........

[Mouse]

Right.

Let's round-up all the ankle biters.

;)

[spurby]

[QUOTE=Exmortis]What about what happened to the 8 years old girl from Stouffville in 1998? Ya, she got killed by a pit bull so the count is not 0.
[QUOTE]

WRONG again Exmortis, better get your facts straight before you post claims like this.

That poor little girl was Courtney Trempe. She was killed by a Bullmastiff. Her mother bravely spoke out AGAINST the "pit bull" ban asking for stiffer penalities against ALL breeds owned by irresponsible owners.

There was even a inquest into her death, here are the findings...http://www.safety-council.org/info/child/Inquest.pdf

NOT one of the many recommendations were implemented, and not one of the recommendations called for a breed ban.

[Exmortis]

WRONG again Exmortis

Ok, I'll give you that.... But wrong again? Where else have you proven me wrong... or are you here to start something? I see your post count is at 1.. Too afraid to post under your main identity?