Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Dog bite statistics

Schwinn
July 22nd, 2005, 06:08 PM
I was just on another site reading a flamewar about the Denver pitbull ban (didn't realize they were showing up at doors, taking dogs that haven't even growled at anyone and destroying them) when someone posted this link. Thought it might be useful.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

twodogsandacat
July 22nd, 2005, 06:32 PM
Thanks Schwinn. You should run it through the Microsoft Office grammer checker and dumb it down to a grade two level before forwarding it to the Liberals.
.

babyrocky1
July 22nd, 2005, 06:37 PM
Did you see the part of the web site were they refer to the pres of peta as being for Pit bull bans and FOR having them euthanized when brought into shelters. If people are still wondering its in there. I think my good mood is officially over!!! I am going to get a list of all the celebs that support that group and start writing them all! Starting with Paul Mccartney, my childhood crush.......He is now soooo over.

babyrocky1
July 22nd, 2005, 06:44 PM
Thanks Schwinn. You should run it through the Microsoft Office grammer checker and dumb it down to a grade two level before forwarding it to the Liberals.
. Dumb it down, most definately, but theres too much in there that the Fibs would quote out of context....we all know how they love to manipulate stats! On first glance it could be FOR BSL and the Fibs we know, dont have the attention span needed for errr "SEE SPOT RUN " Oh no. Spot may resemble a "pit bull type dog" ! Better ban him!

StaceyB
July 22nd, 2005, 07:00 PM
I sure hope the gov't would realize that these aggressive dogs that they are supposedly trying to eliminate are just going to be replaced by another one because as we all know it is not the dog but the owner that is most often responsible for aggressive dogs. What are they going to do then, ban them all.
The gov't would have been better off setting up a testing program for all dogs so that only dogs that pose a risk would be dealt with and all the responsible owners/ dogs that have done their work to ensure they have well behaved, social dogs would be ok. Give dogs at risk an opportunity to work on the issues and be re-tested at a later date. Place restrictions only on the dogs that are at risk of biting.

babyrocky1
July 22nd, 2005, 07:12 PM
Ive always felt "temperment testing would be much preferable to THIS stuff in Ontario. I would be happy to pay the cost for that and if my dog needed to work on any areas for improvement that they found then I benefit and so does everyone involved! I guess it would still be BSL if only certain dogs or breeds of dogs were required to be tested but still makes more sence than this does!

StaceyB
July 22nd, 2005, 07:26 PM
The HS would have those who were adopting any of these so called powerbreeds, part or full to have enrolled in training classes before they could bring the dog home. I have had many of them sent to take classes with me but thought it should be for all of the dogs adopted out, not just select breeds.

babyrocky1
July 22nd, 2005, 07:35 PM
Im pretty sure the THS does temperment testing with all their dogs, I could be wrong though...they have so much on their plate now!

StaceyB
July 22nd, 2005, 07:49 PM
There is a need for qualified persons to be preforming the tests. It can't be done by the kennel hands.

babyrocky1
July 22nd, 2005, 07:54 PM
[QUOTE=StaceyB]I sure hope the gov't would realize that these aggressive dogs that they are supposedly trying to eliminate are just going to be replaced by another one because as we all know it is not the dog but the owner that is most often responsible for aggressive dogs." The point that you have raised has been raised in the house debates and at committeee as well. The government, Michael Bryant, refuses to address any of the concerns brought up by either of the opposition parties or any of the countless experts who testified at committee against BSL. Many of them addressing the concern that you have Stacey. I beleve that the reason the "pit bull ban" has been pushed through despite intelligent alternatives is purely political...Bryant is simply exploiting peoples fears of our dogs, most often created by an over sensationalised media portrayal, for purely political gain. There is no concern for the raifications of the bill, certainly not for owners and dogs, but not for public safety either!

babyrocky1
July 22nd, 2005, 07:58 PM
There is a need for qualified persons to be preforming the tests. It can't be done by the kennel hands. Ofcourse I agree, I just dont know if they do it...if they do, Im sure they would use someone qualified.

DogueLover
July 22nd, 2005, 09:30 PM
I found that a lot of times there are statistics brought up from the USA. I realize that we do have members here from the USA who are going through the bans as we are but I found that doing a search of Canadian Statistics there were little or no published numbers for Canada because no agency takes on the responsibility.
Here is one link that I did find that hopefully will help in the fight.
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

DogueLover
July 22nd, 2005, 09:43 PM
This is from the Canadian Safety council. It is interesting that they use the USA stats to make up their own because Canada does not have enough evidence and stats of their own to be reliable.
http://www.safety-council.org/info/child/dogs.html

babyrocky1
July 22nd, 2005, 09:55 PM
Thanks so much for those links Dogue Lover, there is also a great link on the Canadian Safety Council link that you posted for Dogs and Kids!

Copper'sMom
July 22nd, 2005, 10:16 PM
Here's another link from the Canadian Safety Council. It's from 1999 and it compares Canada and the Netherlands.

http://www.safety-council.org/news/sc/1999/dogbites.htm

I wonder if there is anything we can do to help people in Denver? Taking dogs out of homes for no reason, isn't that against the law in some way?? That's absolutely horrible! :sad:

babyrocky1
July 22nd, 2005, 10:24 PM
I was just thinking the same thing Coppers Mom, I have to omake this fast I just ran upstairs, Im supposed to be downstairs LOL oh Im at work LOL you would thinkkthey would have a large lobby group in Denver that we could contact to see what we can do...they did have the law overturned once so such an organization like our Banned Aid must exist there, We all have to stick together. It could easily be us next... didnt they start off grandfathered and then they took it to court, won, but it was apealled and they lost and then they started coming to homes taking there dogs????? thats how Im understanding the situation anyway. I hope theres something we can do to help!!!

twodogsandacat
July 23rd, 2005, 10:56 AM
[QUOTE=StaceyB]I sure hope the gov't would realize that these aggressive dogs that they are supposedly trying to eliminate are just going to be replaced by another one because as we all know it is not the dog but the owner that is most often responsible for aggressive dogs." The point that you have raised has been raised in the house debates and at committeee as well. The government, Michael Bryant, refuses to address any of the concerns brought up by either of the opposition parties or any of the countless experts who testified at committee against BSL. Many of them addressing the concern that you have Stacey. I beleve that the reason the "pit bull ban" has been pushed through despite intelligent alternatives is purely political...Bryant is simply exploiting peoples fears of our dogs, most often created by an over sensationalised media portrayal, for purely political gain. There is no concern for the raifications of the bill, certainly not for owners and dogs, but not for public safety either!

Most definitely it was pushed to distract from real issues such as broken liberal promises, exposed liberal lies, the liberals not being up to the job and the number one reason – scapegoating works it always has. However with the advent of the internet it is getting harder to hide the truth from the public as in this case. Mere days before the announcement the Star had a large article saying the Liberals had better come up with something - anything to show they were more than promise breakers...and so they did - the immense smokescreen known as Bill 132 .

All of which has left me with questions about policticans. The questions I have for Dalton McGuinty and Michael Bryant are: Are sons of politicians inherently more predisposed to lie and break promises? Did being raised in a home where the fathers were politicians contribute significantly to Dalton McGuinty’s and Michael Bryant’s total lack of respect for the public and their willingness to lie to them (besides a court decision which pretty much calls them liars - autistic kids is my defence for Dalton and we all know there are buckets of lies for Michael - if anybody wants to call this slanderous)? At what age did they develop this total disregard for the truth and this believe that your word (even when signed) – your oath – means nothing?

Dangerous dogs in CANADA:

Pit bulls have been confirmed killers in Canada ONCE in the last twenty something years.

Other dogs kill in far higher numbers in CANADA. CANADA is where we live and if they want to use American stats they should have to prove that the issues in the States (inner cites, drugs, gangs, dog fighting, rap culture, rednecks) have nothing to do with the disproportionate number of deaths attributed to pit bulls. Better yet I'm willing to buy the bus ticket if either of the two amigos wants to move to the states.

With one death a year the major public safety issue then would be BITES not deaths. Hundreds of thousands of bites, mostly to children, many to the face, many requiring plastic surgery.

There are far more dangerous animals in the world. The Liberals broken promise of shutting down coal fired generators will contribute to the premature death of 290 HUMAN BEINGS in the Niagara Region alone (thousands in Ontario) each year until the promise is kept – which makes the Ontario Liberal Party FAR MORE DANGEROUS than any dog of any breed in any country. Yes Dalton McGuinty’s lies, broken promises and the promises they never meant to keep will aid in the KILLING (because that is what a premature death is) of more people in Ontario than a pit bull dog will statistically kill in 5800 years (rate of one human killed by a pit bull in Canada every approximately 20 years multiplied by 290 deaths). Given the option of banning a dog that kills once every twenty years or a political party whose ineptness contributes to thousands of human lives lost each year how would you vote?