Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Pit Bull Attack in Toronto

Faceless
May 21st, 2005, 01:27 PM
http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050521-003/page.asp

babyrocky1
May 21st, 2005, 11:03 PM
Obviously this is very sad, I didn't hear or see any news reports so Im wondering if any details were reported. Its hard to comment with so little information.

Loki
May 22nd, 2005, 12:13 AM
Canada.com has it listed, but not much info.

http://www.canada.com/toronto/news/story.html?id=481fe744-be98-40d3-85ad-b858d17e9cdb

Pitbull attack sends girl to hospital

Broadcast News

May 21, 2005

TORONTO -- A 10-year-old girl is in hospital after a vicious pitbull attack in Toronto.

The girl was attacked inside a west-end home while playing with friends.

She suffered facial injuries and will require major surgery.

The pitbull is in police custody and has been quarantined
© Broadcast News 2005

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really sad.
Not much info, but it seems like another incident that Bryant's law wouldn't prevent - if it happened indoors - the dog wouldn't be muzzled.

babyrocky1
May 22nd, 2005, 12:27 AM
No his law wouldn't have prevented it because his law is about promoting himself and nothing more. I just wish that the media would report the proper information. They should know by now what the issues are, so why dont they ever investigate what is relevent. Of course they always get the alleged breed in there but never if the dog was male or female. If it was an un-altered male, was it a dog used for guarding? etc. etc. I just find it so frustrating as I know we all do to know that theres been coroners inquests and Comittee hearings were there have been so many intelligent recomendations to stop this kind of tragedy and yet the same reporters who probably covered these events dont bother to even use that information to properly cover another tragedy that might have been prevented through education. :sad:

Loki
May 22nd, 2005, 12:54 AM
Honestly, I don't think they even bother looking into the incidents at all.
With the possible exception of City tv.
I think most just pull it off the news wire, and print it pretty much as is. Get the story out asap.

It is a shame. They actually could help to prevent some tragedies. Unfortunately, I think most of the media is only interested in reporting tragedies, not trying to prevent them.

twodogsandacat
May 22nd, 2005, 08:25 AM
I just wish that the media would report the proper information. They should know by now what the issues are, so why dont they ever investigate what is relevent. Of course they always get the alleged breed in there but never if the dog was male or female. If it was an un-altered male, was it a dog used for guarding? etc. etc. I just find it so frustrating as I know we all do to know that theres been coroners inquests and Comittee hearings were there have been so many intelligent recomendations to stop this kind of tragedy and yet the same reporters who probably covered these events dont bother to even use that information to properly cover another tragedy that might have been prevented through education. :sad:

In the recent Niagara Falls attack by two pits they did get that in. I thanked them for that in a ‘not an editorial’ email to the editor and reporter. I also did express that if pit bull attack stories are going to be printed this is the way they should be reported.

They addressed many of the contributing factors in the attack such as two unaltered males being allowed to run free on more than one occasion, that these were dogs that had already attacked another on leash dog and that the one dog would rile up the other.

To see the article search for my recent post for attack in Niagara. It wasn’t available on line but I did scan it and kept the hard copy. It’s still a pit attack story but at least it has some of the real arguments to Bill 132 in it. It’s a start and I only wish that moe people read the St. Catharines Standard and Niagara Falls Review than the Toronto Star.

Loki
May 22nd, 2005, 10:41 AM
City and Canada.com have updated the stories on the previous links.
It looks like the child was playing with a litter of puppies when the attack happened. The owner will be charged.

Since last night, Canada.com has altered the story 3 times:
1. Dog is inside, child is playing with friends.
2. Dog is outside, child is playing with friends.
3. Dog is at townhouse complex, child is playing with litter of puppies.

twodogsandacat
May 22nd, 2005, 11:45 AM
I’m sure their defence will be “No, we only altered it twice not three times. First it was wrong, then we altered it and it was still wrong. We then altered it again so it was right…..we think.. Don’t worry if it’s still wrong we’ll alter it again”.

It’s OK though it’s another example of the inconsistencies that get into the press as soon as they hear the word pit. I’m not sure if Clayton Ruby plans on going down this path but once again it proves that Bill 132 is a sham and the real answers were in the juries recommendations from the Courtney Trempe inquest. The provincial government is so proud to be implementing many of the recommendations from the Coroner’s inquest into the death of Patrick Shand. Patrick Shand died during an altercation with store employees and security guards outside a Scarborough grocery store on September 14, 1999. The Coroner’s Inquest includes 22 recommendations. Now the real issue for this government will be – explaining why they are so quick to act on a juries findings and also so quick to not act on a juries findings. Either an inquest provide value or they don’t. Picking and choosing which ones to follow and which ones to ignore is like passing laws such as silly as ‘you must wear a seatbelt, unless it’s Tuesday’.

BTW: Notice one of the charges….”not exercising reasonable precautions to prevent biting or attacking.” This charge is not breed specific. Even after August 29th Bill 132 wouldn’t apply if the dog was on private property so one more example of how Bill 132 fails to address dog safety. Of course there may be restrictions on breeding pit bulls but the same type of attacks will happen over and over again with other breeds.

Loki
May 22nd, 2005, 02:57 PM
Don’t worry if it’s still wrong we’ll alter it again”.


After I read your post, I checked the Canada.com link - It changed again!
At least there is a little more info, this time.

Man, it makes you wonder if this is how the media treats all stories. Scary.

twodogsandacat
May 22nd, 2005, 05:13 PM
So a thirty year old leaves for kids at home with a pit bull and puppies. It is suggested that the victim was a visitor (hence a possible stranger to the dog). Maybe by early next week they will get it right. I love that they don't throw in a 'correction' on facts (????) that they already published and probably printed that are already stored in the minds of those whose read the story already. The story gets closer and closer to being a warning regarding all dogs......and stupid people.

The pit bull had recently given birth to a litter of pups and its owner, a 30-year-old woman, had left the dog and the puppies alone with the four children. It's not known why there were no other adults in the house.

The Toronto Star says she is from Hamilton but police would not confirm that.

When do we make people responsible for stupid moves and stop blaming animals for being animals. Many dogs have bitten when their young are threatened (real or not).

Isn't there a minimum age to leave kids alone? I think there is and I think it's around fourteen. Would that minimum age also apply when a dog with pups is in the same home?

Don't accuse me of blaming the victim. The paper reports that "it is not known why there were no other adults in the house". Because they are stupid people that's why. No one will call for a ban on stupid people will they?

Bearsmom
May 22nd, 2005, 06:45 PM
The owner of the dog is going to be charged, but I can't remember with what exactly.

What kind of idiot leaves any dog who just had puppies (a HUGE temptation to kids at the best of times) alone with 4 kids? Momma dog was protecting her pups.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE????????????????

Faceless
May 22nd, 2005, 06:45 PM
I'm all for banning stupid people. Starting with the Liberal party and their supporters, both federally and provincially.

babyrocky1
May 23rd, 2005, 11:38 AM
[QUOTE=Bearsmom].

What kind of idiot leaves any dog who just had puppies (a HUGE temptation to kids at the best of times) alone with 4 kids? Momma dog was protecting her pups.

Apparantly the same kind of person who would allow the "pit bull" to get pregnant to pups who have virtually no chance of Surviving Bill 132! No regard for animals-little regard for children! I may be jumping to conclusions here because who knows what really happened, I pretty much dismiss any media reports now.
:sad:

Copper'sMom
May 24th, 2005, 10:28 AM
I think I heard the woman was being charged with obstructing police and also being charged with negligance(towards the child)! IMO she deserves it!! Who in their right mind leaves children alone with a dog, let alone one who has puppies!

happycats
May 24th, 2005, 10:41 AM
I saw them interview the owner on the news at her home. The dog with newborn pups were outside in the fenced in small back yard in a small dirty dog house, and the owner claimed that the kids were in the back yard alone with the dog and pups (no adults were out there) the owner also claimed the child was trying to get one of the pups, (sticking her face in momma dogs face, looking into the dog house ) when the momma dog bit her in the face. the owner claimed it was not the dogs fault as she was just trying to protect her pups.

db7
May 24th, 2005, 12:08 PM
teh owner claimed it was not the dogs fault as she was just trying to protect her pups

well, she got one thing right.

Schwinn
May 24th, 2005, 02:13 PM
You know, one thing I keep thinking is, is it really an attack if it was just one bite? Wouldn't an attack from these big dangerous baby-eaters have been much more severe? Just a thought...

Copper'sMom
May 24th, 2005, 02:26 PM
You're right Schwinn, it shouldn't be considered an "attack" if it was one bite. But as long as it involves a Pit Bull, it'll always be an attack - even if it was a nip, some would say it was an attack!

here's an example:

The Pit Bull nipped the child's finger as he was stealing the Oreo cookie from the child's hand.

OR

The Pit Bull attacked the child and tried to bite his hand off for no apparent reason.

Which story would sell more newspapers??

les
May 25th, 2005, 10:06 AM
So that basically means that Schwinn - when you're a police officer if someone fires one shot at you - if it hits you or not - it's NOT an attack because it was ONLY one shot - - wouldn't an attack by a criminal be =MORE then one shot?????

The kid was at Sick Kids Hospital having surgery .. seems pretty serious of an "attack" to me ..... would ONE bite from a poodle would have sent a kid to the hospital????

Don't mean to start anything I just hate when the victim gets blamed or forgotten - - I mean, her life is completely changed from that "bite".

Schwinn
May 25th, 2005, 10:47 AM
No, what I'm saying is that there is a difference between a dog bit and a dog attack. You're example doesn't equal the same thing. A dog will usually bite for a percieved threat, out of defense. It will bite, and then stop. An attack is completely different, however. It is an offensive move, and if a dog is attacking, it usually will not stop at one bite, but multiple bites. A dog that attacks usually has issues, while a dog that bites usually is doing so out of a (right or wrong) perceived threat. If a dog bites, I would want to know why. In this case, the asshat who owned the dog thought it would be a good idea to let little kids play with the puppies unsupervised. The mother dog probably felt the puppies were threatened. The threat was probably not there, and the dog certainly should be blamed. However, whoever said this was a good idea really deserves the bulk of the blame, as most people realize that a mother animal is going to be defensive of it's young. If it was an attack, the girl would have received multiple bites, and the dog would deserve to die. I don't want any dog prone to attacking around. When a media starts labling a bite as an attack, it helps to get people to support BSL. "See, another one attacked". If the headline read, "Pitbull bites girl", people wouldn't have had such a strong reaction to it. As a matter of fact, people might even question why it happened, and start trying to actually address the problem of dog bites. German Sheppards bite. Labradors bite. Poodles bite. Pitbulls attack. People expect dog bites, but they want to destroy the dogs that attack.

I haven't forgotten the victim at all. It is tragic, and I hope that everytime they look at that child's face, the dog owner and the parents feel guilt. I also know that every time I see a headline about a pit bull "attack", when I look at my dog's face, I feel fear for what will happen when people see her.

I hate it when people blame someone else for thier mistakes.

greaterdane
May 25th, 2005, 11:40 AM
Just to defend the dog again. When my sister was little she was bitten by an old english sheepdog. One bite right by her eye, but she still had to go into the hospital for surgery because she was little and they didnt want the scar to be there for her whole life. Of course the paper is going to make it out to be absolutely horrible. Until we know what really happened opinions are just that... OPINIONS. Sorry, I feel bad for the victim, but I have been around a chihuahua with new born puppies and she was ready to take my face off, just for looking in the playpen. Common sence on the owners part was clearly out the window with this one. Any dog big or little would have done the same thing especially since the paper said she was in the dog house. When someone blocks the light into a dog house of course the dog is going to get scared. Multiply that by 1000 because this dog had puppies in her house with her. This child was no longer a child in the dogs eyes, it was a threat to the life of her puppies. Sorry I am ranting. Poor kid, but poor dog and puppies too. Hopefully animal control took the pups as well seeing as they are newborn and need food. And I doubt the owner will be up every 2 hours bottle feeding these poor pups. Ok I am done :)

les
May 25th, 2005, 03:04 PM
I realize what you're saying and yeah none of the kids should have been left alone with the dog and her puppies and its the womans fault ... however .... could a chihuahua do that kind of damage?

The thing isn't really that pitbulls are the only dogs that bite because of course lots of dogs will bite - - but - - a pitbull does a lot more damage then another dog can do. (in my opinion) ;)

I guess I'm biased because I'm one of the dreaded lab owners and my dogs are way too happy to bite anybody!! Of course with puppies it might be a different story - but they're both spayed/neutered so I won't find out!!

I didn't want to start an argument just wanted to point out that I think an attack could be one bite and doesn't have to be many bites.

greaterdane
May 25th, 2005, 03:41 PM
I realize what you're saying and yeah none of the kids should have been left alone with the dog and her puppies and its the womans fault ... however .... could a chihuahua do that kind of damage?


I used the chihuahua as an example because it was a mother dog with pups. I did not say that it would be the same amount of damage. Any mother dog with pups should be watched especially with children and certainly when the pups are newborns.

Schwinn
May 25th, 2005, 03:56 PM
I realize what you're saying and yeah none of the kids should have been left alone with the dog and her puppies and its the womans fault ... however .... could a chihuahua do that kind of damage?

The thing isn't really that pitbulls are the only dogs that bite because of course lots of dogs will bite - - but - - a pitbull does a lot more damage then another dog can do. (in my opinion) ;)

But it's been proven they are less likely to bite unprovoked. The history of the breed is people friendly. I'm 5'7", over 200 lbs as I work out, my buddy is 5'11", 130 lbs. We both go to a rowdy bar where fights some times break out. He flies off the handle easier than I do. But I can do a lot more damage. Should I be banned from the bar, or should the person who gets into a fight more often? (This is a hypothetical as I haven't gone to those bars since I was a student, except my buddy is really skinny)

I guess I'm biased because I'm one of the dreaded lab owners and my dogs are way too happy to bite anybody!!

It was a lab that I had to protect my sister from while mountain biking. But that being said, I know what you mean. If Daisy's tail isn't wagging, it's because she's sleeping. Oh, wait. She's part pit, so I guess I don't know what you mean.

I didn't want to start an argument just wanted to point out that I think an attack could be one bite and doesn't have to be many bites.

Unfortunatly, then, you are in the minority. It may be a matter of semantics, but when the newspaper headline reads "attack", in conjours up the image of a vicious beast going for blood. "Bite" tends to be associated just that, a bite, a one time thing (meaning not multiple bites). In the rare case a non-pitbull bite/attack is reported, it is reported differently. For example, the boy who was attacks by a lab in North Bay and had to go to sick kids for surgery. The dog was attacking, as it was multiple bites, and I believe the dog was put down. However, even the one paper that did report it, reported it, I believe, as a bite. I know it may not be a big deal to you, the difference in the words, but to those of us who are terrified for our best friends because of BSL, it is a big deal.

les
May 25th, 2005, 04:25 PM
Main Entry: at·tack
Pronunciation: &-'tak
Function: verb

1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
4 : to set to work on
5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
intransitive senses : to make an attack
- at·tack·er noun
synonyms ATTACK, ASSAIL, ASSAULT, BOMBARD, STORM mean to make an onslaught upon. ATTACK implies taking the initiative in a struggle

Main Entry: bite

1 a : to seize especially with teeth or jaws so as to enter, grip, or wound
b : to wound, pierce, or sting especially with a fang or a proboscis
2 : to cut or pierce with or as if with an edged weapon
3 : to cause sharp pain or stinging discomfort to
4 : to take hold of

According to the dictionary, attack doesn't seem to mean once or twice or more or less.

You're probably right about the way people think when they hear the word "attack" compared to the word "bite". Attack sounds much worse but I am sure to the kid and her parents it was an attack.

bluntman
May 25th, 2005, 04:40 PM
I realize what you're saying and yeah none of the kids should have been left alone with the dog and her puppies and its the womans fault ... however .... could a chihuahua do that kind of damage?

The thing isn't really that pitbulls are the only dogs that bite because of course lots of dogs will bite - - but - - a pitbull does a lot more damage then another dog can do. (in my opinion)

Really? A pit bull does a lot more damage than another dog? Where did you get this missinformation?

I very sure if my rottie was human agressive it could do a lot more damage than my pit bull, and there are many other dogs out there that could do more damage than her. The breed of dog is not a big factor in how much damage is done, the bigest factor is the size of the person being bit. There are many breeds capable of doing more harm than a pit bull

greaterdane
May 25th, 2005, 04:54 PM
I am very sure if my rottie was human agressive it could do a lot more damage than my pit bull, and there are many other dogs out there that could do more damage than her. The breed of dog is not a big factor in how much damage is done, the bigest factor is the size of the person being bit. There are many breeds capable of doing more harm than a pit bull

Yes yes yes and yes again. If my dane were human agressive his size alone is enough to hurt and even kill a child. My friends 200+ pound rottie could also do far more damage then my sisters 45lb pitty. JMO though

Luvmypit
May 25th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Another thing is a bite is also often asscoiated with pit bulls as a mauling.


5 stiches for a lab is a bite and for a pit its an attack or a mauling and honestly there is a BIG difference in that.

Point is our dogs get bad reps and were trying to point that out to you.

For example on pulse 24 a headline read youths use pit bull to rob other youths.... something along those lines. (Cant rememebr as it was atleast 5 months or so ago)
When I read the article these kids did threaten to let lose their pit bull to rob these other kids what the title forgets to include is the fact these kids also had a gun, bat and knives. I don't know about you but that is a concern to me more so then a pit bull. When the pit was released he just sat there.
Its headline grabbing and I can throw a million more of those at you les.
Also a couple misidentified pit bulls that were never corrected in the newspapers that reported them as pits.

Also your lovely Lab (which I love by the way) are tied for number one biter with the cocker spaniel.

And to answer would one bite from a poodle make you go to the hospital YES YES YES.... Why not? There are large breed poodles with bad temperments too you know. Could a lab send you to the hospital ... YES and believe it or not have been responsible for human deaths. A pomerinian has been responsible for atleast 2 deaths in the states (babies) in the past
A chihuahua send you to the hospital? YEs. You'd be a fool to believe that any other dog is not capable of such damage.

Luvmypit
May 25th, 2005, 04:58 PM
a Rotti has 3000 psi in their jaw as a pit has 2000 psi in their jaw. Not to point out the rotti but to show that other dogs regardless of breed is very capable of inflicting damage

les
May 25th, 2005, 05:11 PM
Okay you win ... it was a bite not an attack

I don't want to agrue on the internet! LOL

Was just stating my (very unpopular) opinion ;)

Schwinn
May 25th, 2005, 05:23 PM
You have to understand that you are talking to a group of people who feel thier best friends are being threatened for nothing more than having a square head and muscular body. And some have been threatened themselves while walking down the street, all because of the way people view these dogs, which has usually been formed by the words that were used in some paper or by some attention grabbing attorney general (I don't want to name names, though). So while we are ALL appalled when someone is hurt by any dog (and you'll find some older threads where there has been mutual agreement that the dog needs to be put down), you'll have to forgive us for coming to defense of an animal that appears to have been behaving as just that, an animal, pitbull or otherwise. It isn't a lack of caring for the victim, it's caring for the animal involved and our own. And a frustration at the band-aid solution of getting rid of the dog, which won't prevent a future attack (had it been a lab, poodle, schnauzer or whatever, it sounds as though it would have happened, severe or not), just from this dog, rather than addressing the real problem, an irresponsible and/or mis-informed owner/set of parents, which would have prevented the attack in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with debate, or differing opinions. Personally, I'd find this board to be boring without them.

babyrocky1
May 25th, 2005, 05:44 PM
Hey guys Ive been sick for two days with the stomache flue. Glad to have missed this conversaton though! I can see you all managed very well without me :D
Les if you feel like your being ganged up on Im sorry, but we have to go through this EVERY time we walk out the door with our beloved furry family members. The four days of testimony from the committee hearings are posted here if you really want the scoop on pit bulls, you should give it a read. We all have! Somewhere on this site theres a link or a post that talks about the intent of a biting, or an attacking dog. It seems that the intent of the dog thats biting makes the real difference in the outcome of the bite. Infact it may be in hansard, Also , Im sure your labs are wonderful, but not even you can take for granted that your dogs would never bite! As I have recently posted, two people that I know one with a lab, and one with a golden retriever both had the unfortunate experience of their dogs biting kids!
As for this incident and the circumstances surrounding it, the dog reacted as any other dog would have.

twodogsandacat
May 25th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Seems I'm late but pick your poison.

A Shepherd will inflict many cuts in an attack. Like the attack I personally know about in Niagara Falls a few years back.
A Rotti will rip and tear flesh. Like the calve ripped off of the young boy - in Winnipeg
A pit will crush. No pit bites in Winnipeg - they're banned.

A bite is a bite is a bite and they all hurt like hell.

This was more of a warning bite not the attack the media loves. It was not ongoing, it was not hell bent on killing it's victim it was a 'get out of my face and leave my pups alone'.

This is the same type of bite that sent a child to the hospital for reconstructive surgery in Niagara Falls after grandpa's dog got a little obsessive about his toy. The story was FINALLY found on line at a radio station's website. Why...because it was a chocolate lab. Man you had to look really hard to find an online version of that story. Reconstructive surgery does that sound like damage?

When Lyric the mix breed (but not pit) bit the paperboy it was an attack and the Attorney General shouted it from the rooftops. When Lyric was exposed as not being a pit bull type dog it was a bite and the Attorney General never mentioned it again.

Dogs bite. The secret is to know why, educate people (especially kids) why and how to avoid them. Dogs that bite for no reason need to go no matter the breed.

BTW Les. Canada has approximately one dog related death a year. In the last twenty years pits show up on that list once and the victim was intoxicated and provoked the dogs first. Can anybody dispute this? I searched and searched and can't find anything to the contrary.

For the last two years running one breed has killed twice but that dog is 'not an issue' to Attorney General Michael Bryant (sorry Schwinn I will name names). Can you name that breed? I won't as that may lead to BSL against that breed, and then the next and the next...........

The level of disinformation that is thrown around regarding dog attacks\dog bites is shocking to any that want to seek out the truth. They say a majority support a pit bull ban........that's why smart government's ignore the majority in most cases...the majority has no clue.

Faceless
May 25th, 2005, 10:20 PM
At one point in European/American history, the majority believed that slavery was moral.

twodogsandacat
May 25th, 2005, 10:50 PM
At one point in European/American history, the majority believed that slavery was moral.

And that women shouldn't vote, the world was flat and that thunder was an angry god..........

les
May 26th, 2005, 07:53 AM
right .. you got it

Dukieboy
May 26th, 2005, 09:17 AM
Wow, I haven't had access for a couple of days. Interesting thread. On behalf of Duke and all other good doggie pitbulls, thank you Schwinn and others for going to bat. :grouphug:

les
May 26th, 2005, 04:01 PM
Just one more ....

I just wanted to point out that I was never attacking pitbulls - just the fact that a bite and an attack to me says the same thing - one is not better or worse.

As for the majority being fools ... look who they voted back into power!!! That says it all! However that doesn't mean that ALL majority opinions are wrong/false.

What I can't seem to understand is why they are putting all these resources into pitbulls ... I mean, there are WAY bigger fish to fry. Why not put it into catching REAL offenders??

The police chief said pitbulls are the choice of criminals - and thats great, in fact it's probably true - - but why not go after the criminals NOT the pitbulls??? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me!! :confused:

Kayla and Me
May 26th, 2005, 04:25 PM
a Rotti has 3000 psi in their jaw as a pit has 2000 psi in their jaw. Not to point out the rotti but to show that other dogs regardless of breed is very capable of inflicting damage

Sorry Luv...just want to post some info about this.

+ Do APBT's really have 1600 psi biting pressure and locking jaws?
[Information gleaned from the ADBA phamplet titled "Discover the
American Pit Bull Terrier]

No, they do not have either. Dr. I Lehr Brisbin of the University
of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no
published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparision
to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There
are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing
biting power in terms of 'pounds per square inch' can never be
collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power
in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some
cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data."

Futhermore, Dr. Brisbin states, "The few studies which have been
conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of
pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure
and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than
that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the
existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure
of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier."


I tried to find out more information and the best I could find, was that if the Rotti has 3000 psi, then it has the equivalent of an Alligator's or Croc's psi. However, I couldn't find anything that confirmed the Rotti's psi.

Some interesting reading:
http://www.edba.org.au/myths.html

Kayla and Me

Luvmypit
May 26th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Thats exactly it les.
If pits are the criminals choice right then you ban them and the criminals are most definatley going to choose another breed. Probably a more dangerous one. Believe or not there are more dangerous breeds.

We dont mean to undermine this childs pain or suffereing. Thats not the kind of people we are. We just have the urge to question anything media. Just because of their track record of just reporting pit bull bites/attacks/maulings or whatever you want to call it.

Also more so whats disturbing is the fact that the Attorney refused to add a dog bite registry (probably afraid it would prove him wrong) and also denied our children the chance to educate themselves on dog issues.
These two things are things the liberals decided not to add to the bill. If it was in the best interest and they really did listen to experts the very least that should have been done that would make any sense is a bite registry and education in schools.
I know one of those would have prevented this tragedy. Education. Nothing in the bill in its current form would have prevented any of this.

No one says that all majority opinions are wrong. That would be silly... It just so happens the majority is wrong in this situation when it comes to pit bulls. I won't agree to anything else because I have the knowledge of research under my belt.

The same people who support this bill are the same ones who believe this dog has a lock jaw. Or whatever other myths there are out there. If you look at statistics and numbers and the TRUE history of this dog then you would think differently. Knowledge is power.

Luvmypit
May 26th, 2005, 04:43 PM
Kayla and me. Your probably right but some people say they have 5000 psi... which is nuts!

I did get that number from somewhere Im just not sure. Oh well point is there are alot of myths and misconnceptions.

babyrocky1
May 26th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Im glad you found that Kayla and me, I knew I read it somewhere, but we read so much stuff that it all kind of melds together after a while.

twodogsandacat
May 26th, 2005, 08:07 PM
A lot of people don't have a problem with pit bulls. Of those that do most can be convinced of the facts as long as they don't have an agenda (like the Ontario Liberals).

Generally whenever we have the chance......we will give the facts and dare those who still don't believe to produce a reliable source. In one Canada.Com discussion one woman continually said pit bulls are killing kids all over Canada and also said Winnipeg had no serious dog issues. I sent her the links to the Winnipeg Sun stories I collected stating otherwise. I also asked her to name the last child killed by a pit bull in Canada.. Didn’t hear back from her.

It’s not personal Les. We’ve just heard it all before and can’t believe that the stories spread yet people don’t question the story provided by the government of find out the facts for themselves.

We are willing to tell the truth to anybody willing to listen. Open minded people like Les.

babyrocky1
May 26th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Yeah Les we like you, we really like you :grouphug:

Loki
May 26th, 2005, 09:44 PM
What I can't seem to understand is why they are putting all these resources into pitbulls ... I mean, there are WAY bigger fish to fry. Why not put it into catching REAL offenders??

IMHO It's just Politics and ambition.

Before pitbulls, most Ontarians had no clue who Michael Bryant was. Most were foaming at the mouth about broken promises and health "premiums." McGuinty was cash-strapped, and had a very bad public image. A high profile attack happened and Bryant stirred up a media frenzy. Municipalities are forced to pay for the ban, so it costs the provincal gvmnt little. McGuinty gets free PR - Bryant gets tv-time and recognition - Newspapers get sold.

Before pitbulls, I remember Bryant popping up on tv ranting about a video game, a t-shirt (had an offensive picture), a world war II action figure - anything to cause a distraction. Those things didn't stick - pitbulls did.

Heck, at one point Bryant was planning legal action against the NHL to get a photo-op.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2005/02/18/Sports/stanley_cup050218.htm

twodogsandacat
May 26th, 2005, 10:15 PM
What I can't seem to understand is why they are putting all these resources into pitbulls ... I mean, there are WAY bigger fish to fry. Why not put it into catching REAL offenders??

It's like Loki says PR and a smokescreen for the ineffectiveness of his government. For this same reason Michael Bryant won't charge Karla Homokla in her sister's death. Something that would be very simple to do and was not covered by the deal with the devil.

If charged he could no longer comment on a case before the courts - it is inappropriate for the Attorney General to do that. With a gag order on Bryant he would suddenly have to come up with other ways to get his name in the paper.

Forget justice it serves no purpose for this government unless there is a photo op involved.

Akeeter
May 27th, 2005, 12:20 AM
After I read your post, I checked the Canada.com link - It changed again!
At least there is a little more info, this time.

Man, it makes you wonder if this is how the media treats all stories. Scary.

First the kids were out walking with the dog in the Jane Finch area after midnight, without an adult when the attack happened.. :eek: :crazy:
Then the were in? -or was it outside? the townhouse? :confused:
Then, the female dog had pups, & the visitor child walked between the female & her pups. :sad:
Then the kids actually had the pups with them.. :eek:
Then the 'owner' wasn't even present when the attack happened. (She was upstairs.) :sick:
But she did remove the dogs before calling 911-!?! :yuck:

(Does Bill 132 come with a 'Liar, liar, pants on fire' clause?) :mad:

twodogsandacat
May 27th, 2005, 06:55 AM
(Does Bill 132 come with a 'Liar, liar, pants on fire' clause?) :mad:

Why not? Bill 132 was brought forward by a liar?

babyrocky1
May 27th, 2005, 06:44 PM
[QUOTE=Loki]
Heck, at one point Bryant was planning legal action against the NHL to get a photo-op.


I think Don Cherry might have had a few comments on that issue, lol wish he would have more to say about this one though :sad:

twodogsandacat
May 27th, 2005, 07:09 PM
If Michael Bryant wants the Stanley Cup I'm willing to put a lot of effort into organizing the event. He just has to take it away from five American hockey players. No padding allowed.

Loki
May 27th, 2005, 07:48 PM
He just has to take it away from five American hockey players. No padding allowed.

Or five dog owners. :)