Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Oh boy.....this is what some folks think!

lezzpezz
September 6th, 2005, 10:55 AM
This is what pb owners are up against from average Joe Public......

EVEN WELL-TRAINED PIT BULL NOT A 'PET'
Tuesday, September 6, 2005

Column: Letters to the Editor
BY NICHOLAS MCRAE, CORUNNA

I was shocked to see the headline, Pit bull ban challenged in court (Aug. 29), that there are still people challenging the ban of pit bull ownership.
Some are saying that pit bull behavioural problems arise from the breeder, and not the breed.

This logic baffles me. The point I am making is that the pit bull is built to kill.

Every breed that exists likely has both bad owners and good owners, but you don't see headlines in the paper about poodles, golden retrievers or shih tzus mauling people. It is as if there is a belief that, now that pit bulls are being banned, the same horrible dog owners are going to go out, buy a different breed, and suddenly turn the new dogs into walking time bombs.

This would imply that only pit bull owners are unsuitable, but just a year ago my Wheaten terrier was attacked by a pit bull with immaculate training, a great home and great owners.

The pit bull is strong and vicious. There is no need to expose people to these animals.

Being a part of the dog species doesn't mean the pit bull is a suitable pet.

love my dogs
September 6th, 2005, 11:06 AM
lezzer I guess we both had the same thought at the same time....I just started a thread about this too.

What I don't understand is why these people feel so sure of their opinions. Just the very fact that all us pittie owners, and also animal experts are opposed to the ban should make them question themselves.

Ban supporters think that pittie owners are biased and their opinions should therefore not count. That thinking makes no sense because pittie owners should know more about the breed than these nitwits that have little or no facts to base their opinions on.

If anything, this woman is biased because her only experience with a pittie was a bad one.

lezzpezz
September 6th, 2005, 11:39 AM
I agree wholeheartedly! Funny that she has such a strong opinion based on no facts...I'm sorry that the dog was killed/hurt, but why accuse all pb's and their owners? Such an uphill battle when drivel like this is printed....hey, where's MY fact based letter rebutting what the guy said about GS's, labs etc?? It was based on stats, facts and truth, but the Freeps haven't put it in the paper! Big surprise there :cool:

Me and Kayla
September 6th, 2005, 11:40 AM
If anything, this woman is biased because her only experience with a pittie was a bad one.

Someone forgot to teach my dog to fight and be a killer! :eek:

She's had 3 scrapes with other dogs in the 8 months I've had her, none of which she instigated, with a pitbull, a beagle and a lab. She wasn't seriously hurt but she sure as heck didn't win any of those battles. Where is this natural, instinctual or genetically inclined behaviour that she's supposed to have? She sure wasn't first in line, when they were handing out those so-called natural born killer instincts!

I just sit here and shake my head when I hear all this garbage from people who don't have a darn clue what a pitbull is or is not.

Me and KILLER! (considering a name change...what do you think?) ;)

BullLover
September 6th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Posted this on the other thread dealing with the same topic, so I thought I'd post it here too.

The papers are just looking for something for people to be afraid of. Overexposure for BSL causes people to be more afraid of the dogs, not even having met one. What you read is what you believe, expecially coming from the newspaper. I find it hard to believe the stupidity of people now adays. My father was terrified when I brought home Brutus. Two of my three pits are rescued and my father has never known a pitbull, just what he has read or heard in the media. After not wanting to come and visit, and not allowing me to bring over any of the dogs to his house, he finally came to his senses. While I was working in the backyard one afternoon, my father paid a visit to my house. I had no idea that he was coming over, and Brutus (70 lbs.) was in the backyard with me. He is extremely protective of me, but he let my dad just walk in the yard. He didn't bark at him or try to bite him. He walked over to him and whined for some pets. After that incident, he is no longer one of the stupid people on this earth.

love my dogs
September 6th, 2005, 12:04 PM
Here is my letter to the LFP (well today's letter).

Tell me what you think.......should I add in that my family has poured tens of thousands of advertising dollars into this rag. It makes me so mad because there is no competition for the LFP, they are the only city paper, and main news source in London. :mad:

Here it is:

It continues to baffle me that I only see opinions that are FOR the breed ban printed, and none that are against the ban.

It is a travesty that the public is only being exposed to one opinion that is being expressed only by people who are not educated about Pitbulls, informed about actual bite statistics, or have sufficient experience with the breed to know what they are talking about .

I have not seen opinions printed from dog behaviourists, experts on dog bite prevention, pitbull owners, trainers, or anyone who may actually have some authority on the issue.

I am aware of several pitbull owners and experts who have written letters to the London Free Press, in an attempt to educate the public, and clear up some of the misconceptions about this wonderful, loving breed of dog. Unfortunately, I have not seen any of these letters printed.

Shame on you London Free Press for allowing YOUR opinion to get in the way of the truth.

BullLover
September 6th, 2005, 12:14 PM
Ha ha!
Shame on them....Great letter! Are you looking to get it published? If so, you need to include something about hating the pitbull. Don't forget, they love to hate. Maybe you should ad that a number of people, like myself, are no longer purchasing this paper due to stupidity of the editors.

love my dogs
September 6th, 2005, 12:22 PM
bullLover - somehow, I don't think they care if a few people stop buying the paper.

Give me an example of the love to hate paragraph, and I'll throw it in. Or you could write one too.....doesn't hurt...the more letters, the better chance of them publishing one.

Me and Kayla
September 6th, 2005, 12:25 PM
Great Letter!

Definitely include the part about the 10's of thousands of dollars in potential lost revenue. Hit them where it hurts! They won't care about a few lost readers, but they WILL care about something that could lose them advertising dollars. Without those dollars, there is no LFP.

Me and Kayla

lezzpezz
September 6th, 2005, 12:40 PM
A great letter! Is gambling allowed on this forum?? Who wants to place bets that this letter will or will not get printed in the paper? How about my letter :rolleyes: Odds are, they won't....

The Londoner, albeit a much smaller paper with less distribution, is a much sought after and well read paper and the editor LOVES dogs and prints anything and everything pro-pitty or not...it is fair and unbiased. I have had great success getting my views across. Worth a shot! but ya can't slam other papers!

StaceyB
September 6th, 2005, 12:56 PM
Story:
I was speaking with a girl that had brought in a 4 wk old red nose for advice. This older lady came up to see the puppy(remember 3 weeks old), she said oh what a cute little puppy. She doted over it until she asked what breed it was. The girl told her it was a pitbull. The older lady then said oh thats a pitbull and walked away. I couldn't believe it, only one minute earlier she thought it was such a nice puppy.

Me and Kayla
September 6th, 2005, 01:17 PM
I agree wholeheartedly! Funny that she has such a strong opinion based on no facts...I'm sorry that the dog was killed/hurt......

Interestingly enough....she didn't say that her dog was either hurt or killed. She used that reactive word 'attacked' and we all assume that there was serious damage done. She could very well be referring to a pitbull barking loudly at her dog and to her that was an attack.

Take away 'attack' and substitute with...

Altercation
Scrape
Aggressive meeting...etc etc...

All of a sudden when you are talking about two dogs, it doesn't sound like such a big deal.

Me and Kayla

BullLover
September 6th, 2005, 01:23 PM
Give me an example of the love to hate paragraph, and I'll throw it in. Or you could write one too.....doesn't hurt....

Will do, but I know that they won't be publishing it.

babyrocky1
September 6th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Interestingly enough....she didn't say that her dog was either hurt or killed. She used that reactive word 'attacked' and we all assume that there was serious damage done. She could very well be referring to a pitbull barking loudly at her dog and to her that was an attack.

Take away 'attack' and substitute with...

Altercation
Scrape
Aggressive meeting...etc etc...

All of a sudden when you are talking about two dogs, it doesn't sound like such a big deal.

Me and Kayla Exactly "attack is a completely subjective term these days. I once met a woman walking a youngish golden. Rocky sniffed her dog and went diving into a play bow....the woman actually screamed as if someone were attacking HER. I was in shock...(this was way before Bryants day thank God) I pulled Rocky back and just stood there looking at her til I finally said hes just playing....Duh..( I didn't say DUH out loud, LOL but she got the message... how can a large breed dog owner not be able to determine what a play bow is???? Obviously she thought Rocky was attacking her dog. I never saw her again. I think she decided she didn't have the temperment to own a dog. Hope so. But really, the point needs to be made that the people making these accusations arent educated in dog behaviour and usually do not have the ability to determine if a dog is either attacking or "menacing"

love my dogs
September 14th, 2005, 08:57 AM
OMG!!!!! I guess they ran out of op's opinions to print against pitties, (notice they still have not printed any of our letters), so they print their own opinion under "OUR VIEW".

Who wrote this anyway? The editor? Where did they get those stats from? what the *%$@#&*%#@%^*&!!!!!!!!!

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/Opinion/ (http://)




Pit-bull bylaw serves purpose


While it's understandable that responsible owners of pit bulls will resent both provincial legislation and a city bylaw relating to their dogs, the bigger issue is public safety.

London Animal Care and Control statistics from September 2001 to September 2004 show that an average of one out of 5.9 pit bulls has bitten a person. Next worst are rottweilers, at one in 14.4. And that doesn't take into account the ferociousness and severe injuries that mark many pit-bull attacks.

Still, pit-bull owners' concerns deserve attention, and, to that end, city council's environment and transportation committee did the right thing this week in referring the issue back to staff.

Among dog owners' concerns with the bylaw is a requirement that they have $1 million in liability insurance. They say it may be impossible or too expensive. If so, changes should be made in the bylaw because a requirement that can't be met would negate enforcibility.

Coun. Fred Tranquilli, who chairs the committee, says in referring the bylaw city staff have been asked to ensure its definitions are consistent with those of the provincial statute.

While this newspaper urged council last fall to delay its pit-bull bylaw pending provincial legislation (which has since become law), the city contends a municipal law would provide a licensing system for pit bulls that would help identify which dogs are "grandfathered" (allowed to remain, under strict controls). The provincial law does not provide for licensing. Tranquilli points out this is also beneficial to dog owners because it proves their pit bull is grandfathered.

In light of the opposition pit-bull legislation has met, anything that adds clarity has merit.

Ontario's law bans pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any dog "that has an appearance and physical characteristics similar to any of those dogs."

Some opponents of the legislation have argued the definition is not clear and is too broad. That's a red herring because the same could be said for any dog where there has been cross-breeding. Such rhetoric doesn't help people who have been badly mauled by an aggressive dog.

Others say the problem is bad owners. But an irresponsible owner is a greater threat if he or she is master of a pit bull than of a poodle. Besides, a broader city bylaw yet to come will cover all dogs and therefore addresses all owners.

Thanks to grandfathering, no one is being required to surrender dogs they currently own. There will be tighter restrictions, such as the requirement that pit bulls be muzzled and on a leash when in public places, but people will be allowed to keep their dogs. They just can't replace them with another pit bull. Given the variety of breeds available, surely one of those would meet most people's needs.

Since Winnipeg banned pit bulls in 1990, such attacks there have declined from 25 a year to one or two. The increase in public safety is worth giving up one choice in selecting a dog.

bluntman
September 14th, 2005, 09:28 AM
It's very frustrateing to read such nonsence, when the truth is right in front of them, BREED BANS DON'T WORK!, Our local free press has been pushing the great benifits we will all see from the provincial ban, and they go on to deflate the nonsence being brought forward by the silly pit owners who are fighting this great law that is ment to protect our children. I know for a fact they received a lot of very well written letters to dispute the stance of the free paper, and they refused to print anything that went against there opinion that, the ONLY bad dogs out there are pit bulls. It's to bad that lieing,blind,cold hearted,ignorant,hippocrits are the one's in charge of what people are reading these days, the truth is a thing of the past.

lezzpezz
September 14th, 2005, 10:41 AM
The only thing I can think of to say that is at all positive is that the other, smaller yet very popular paper, The Londoner, will publish pretty much anything pro-pit bull and anti BSL. Just look at last few weeks editions......chock full of well written letters from owners and non owners alike who know the facts and pay heed to the professionals, not the idiots at City Hall or the letter writers to the LFP. If I want to be heard and seen, I will continue to submit letters to the Londoner, where at least they give everyone, for or against, equal billing!! It's too bad the LFP reaches so many more people.....