Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Forced Breed Extinction

K9Friend
August 29th, 2006, 03:38 PM
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/extinction.html

cpietra16
August 29th, 2006, 05:15 PM
It's very sad, but not surprising. Afterall, we are human and until we get rid of all and THEN realise we again for the billionth time have screwed up.... ahhhhh....we never learn. I say get rid of the morons and our problems would be solved:angel:

seeker
August 30th, 2006, 02:35 PM
It's very sad, but not surprising. Afterall, we are human and until we get rid of all and THEN realise we again for the billionth time have screwed up.... ahhhhh....we never learn. I say get rid of the morons and our problems would be solved:angel:

I take it by morons you mean elected government officials that are supposed to be the voice of the people and not supposed to have their own adjendas and are trying to play"god".
It is kind of like dreaming isn't it ?

cpietra16
August 30th, 2006, 04:01 PM
I take it by morons you mean elected government officials that are supposed to be the voice of the people and not supposed to have their own adjendas and are trying to play"god".
It is kind of like dreaming isn't it ?



yup....only in a perfect world, but that would mean getting rid of people:D

jesse's mommy
August 30th, 2006, 04:10 PM
yup....only in a perfect world, but that would mean getting rid of people:D

Hey, I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy that owns a cement company...:evil:

cpietra16
August 30th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Hey, I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy that owns a cement company...:evil:


HEy....yuuu talkin to an italian....okay...I know my uncle Guido that has been dying for a job:D

jesse's mommy
August 30th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Have Guido call my guy and we'll set something up!

Prin
August 30th, 2006, 04:25 PM
Fageddaboutit. Yous guys is nutso!

ChancesMom
September 2nd, 2006, 12:24 AM
I'd like to add that the article says if you just want a pet to buy a lapdog...

Well, my 60 pound pit bull thinks that HE is a lap dog... lmao!

Seriously, we cannot even switch our homeowners insurance due to the breed of dog that we have... and our state has considered a ban... but since the insurance companies are not insuring homes where they live, that is pretty much the same thing.

Cockerspaniels and those tiny dogs bite and nip more than pit bulls do... and it is such a shame that a few nitwits who think that they are cool by teaching a dog to bite or not properly caring for their dogs have a problem that then effects an entire breed.

It is a good thing that there isn't a species on earth larger than us as after all of the human fiascos over the years humans may have been spayed/nuetered, banned or just put to sleep.... there are billions of the buggers running around and too many lie, cheat, steal, mame and kill...

erykah1310
September 4th, 2006, 10:27 AM
Seriously though, all this BSL with muzzle restrictions and no breeding and so on.
Around here it has NOT been enforced AT ALL. I see countless Pits and Staffies walking around the cities near me and there is no muzzle and Mr.Pittie is clearly not NEUTERED.

Most of the people are following the rules but there is also a large number who arent.

Right now there is 2 litters of Pitties being advertised around here. Publically!!!
( wrong regardless of breed Iknow but its true)

How can they really enforce this???? I know the fines and the dogs being removed from families down south and so on, but up here no one seems to be doing anything!?!??!?!

Gotta love our government none the less. They are MORONS!!!!

erykah1310
September 4th, 2006, 10:30 AM
I just read my post and it sounded a bit like I am discouraged that no one is enforcing it, thats not the message im trying to get across.

I hate BSL, ( although it doesnt affect me directly, it will one day I know it)

Im just wondering how it is that people can still advertise litters and walk publically with no muzzle and no one is doing anything about it. ( Since its such a GREAT public concern and all) **** THat was EXTREME sarcasm there****

Cygnet
September 4th, 2006, 10:47 AM
First of all, "extinction" (particularly when it is compared to extinction of a species) is not a proper term when you are thinking about dog breeds. Dog breeds are creations human beings, and given enough time, (as long as dogs, or wolves, even, survive) any dog breed could be re-created.

It is true that pit bulls are already the subject of breed bans many places and are likely to be the subject of more and more breed bans more places. (And, as several posters noted, pit bull ownership also subjects many owners to insurance cancellations, which has the same effect as a ban). This isn't because politicians aren't listening to the public. Politicians don't do stuff that will annoy some portion of their constituents unless more constituents want it to happen. But the majority of the public WANTS pit bulls banned.

Pit bulls, after all, were originally bred to attack other dogs without any provocation whatsoever, and to keep attacking until the other dog was dead. Many people are still breeding pit bulls for that trait (known as "gameness," and highly prized by dog fighters). Few pit bull breeders are seriously breeding away from dog aggression in pit bulls even today. They say it is just part of a pit bull. Pit bull people always make the distinction that they are not bred for HUMAN aggression, but lots of dog lovers don't want to live next door to a dog who wants to kill and is capable of killing their dogs any more than the day care center will welcome John Mark Karr to the neighborhood.

And the trait of dog aggression has another destructive quality. Dog aggression in pit bulls actually ATTRACTS the worst kind of dog owner to pit bull ownership. Many of these people think a dog who wants to kill dogs is great but a dog who wants to kill dogs AND is dangerous to people is even greater. Needless to say, responsible dog owners don't want a dog who is dangerous to either dogs or people. So while pit bull people often bemoan that there are so many horrible pit bull owners and breeders out there, the fact that they aren't doing anything about the dog aggression issue makes it pretty inevitable that the number of bad owners will continue to rise and the number of good owners will continue to decline. (And the headlines will continue).

If pit bull people want to lessen the probability that pit bulls will become "extinct," they need to either change pit bulls radically or control who gets pit bulls or both. Possibly even if they do both these things, it will be too little, too late. The ways to change pit bulls would be if all responsible breeders of pit bulls agreed to stop breeding pit bulls which are dangerous to ANYTHING. No more excusing dog aggression because it is "part of the breed." Unless a pit bull is tolerant of all beings--human and canine--it shouldn't be bred. (Plus, of course, it should be titled on both ends and have passed all its health screens, just like other dogs). They should change the American Pit bull terrier standard (UKC) and the AmStaff (AKC) standard to make dog aggression in the breed a DISQUALIFICATION. They should lobby hard for breed specific mandatory spay/neuter laws that require all pit bulls to be spayed/neutered except for health screened show dogs. Since the very worst pit bull owners won't spay/neuter their dogs (they are dog fighters and backyard breeders and spay/neuter will make their dogs worthless to them) , just having breed specific spay/neuter for pit bulls (along the lines of what San Francisco has done) will help immensely. And it will help pit bulls too--right now they glut shelters and die in horrific numbers.

What are YOUR ideas for solving the pit bull crisis?

Loki
September 4th, 2006, 08:29 PM
This isn't because politicians aren't listening to the public. Politicians don't do stuff that will annoy some portion of their constituents unless more constituents want it to happen. But the majority of the public WANTS pit bulls banned.


Pit bull bans are rarely about politicians listening to constituents. It's usually ambitious politicians stirring up a media frenzy after a dog attack, trying to make political hay. Politicians looking for cheap photo-ops and certain lobbyists definitely want them banned. Anti-companion animal groups certainly want them banned. The majority of the public (the rational ones, at least) want what those opposed to bans want - dog attacks reduced. Pit bull bans fail miserably at that.

Proper laws that would reduce dog attacks cost money, and politicians don't want to spend it - which is usually why the area had a dog problem in the first place (they weren't properly enforcing the existing laws). Instead of using their already spread thin resources to track down truly dangerous dogs, they then waste their time capturing/killing harmless pets and harassing their owners, based only on the dog's appearance.

In Ontario, experts from Canada, the US, and the UK unanimously opposed banning pit bulls. Alternate solutions that actually could work were presented - the government mocked the experts and ignored their advice. The transcripts from the public hearings are posted somewhere on this site. The government wanted maximum publicity with minimum cost. They wrote a law and downloaded all the costs to municipalities. They exploited some tragic events for some free publicity, and they've milked it for about 2 years.



What are YOUR ideas for solving the pit bull crisis?

Personally, I don't have a problem with regulating breeders and pushing for spneuter for everyone else - for all breeds. Breed specific anything is just silly, though. It just encourages the (real or imagined) undesired behavior to shift to another breed. The implication that killing off dogs that look a certain way would do anything to reduce dog attacks is ridiculous. Obviously, people that want to breed for aggression can, and will, with any breed.


If by "pit bull crisis" you are referring to these dogs suffering at the hands of sleazy politicians, dog-fighters and breeders, some bad owners and unethical "animal rights" groups trying to make them martyrs to their agendas - then I'm not sure what the solution is. They'll all gladly move along to the next breed, once all the "pit bulls" are slaughtered.

Personally, I don't buy the "kill as many as you can, neuter the rest and make it almost impossible for them to find homes" mantra that the anti-pet groups and politicians try to spin as compassion. That does nothing to end the suffering, it just guarantees that many gentle dogs are torn from loving homes, and forced to suffer the same fate. It certainly does nothing to punish the humans that are responsible, or to protect the next breed they target. Actually enforcing existing laws, and putting the money raised back into AC would be a start. Animal cruelty laws definitely should be strengthened. Holding the owners/ breeders accountable is essential (regardless of breed).


If by "crisis" you are trying to imply that these dogs are a huge safety risk....
Dog attacks are tragic - regardless of what the dog looks like, that did the biting. The number of attacks, bites and deaths from dog attacks has remained relatively constant for decades. There isn't some new epidemic of dog attacks - just different breeds being targeted and/or biting. It is more a factor of the popularity of the breed, than anything else. The vast majority of dogs that would be labeled "pit bulls" are safe, sound and pose absolutely no more threat than would other dogs. Laws targeting them will accomplish nothing - they were never the problem. The problem owners/breeders/dogs are what needs to be addressed. That's not an issue of breed, but of owner/breeder which is what laws should be targeting. Its also why breed specific laws inevitably fail.

ChancesMom
September 5th, 2006, 12:34 AM
What are YOUR ideas for solving the pit bull crisis?

IMHO there is no pit bull crisis, there is a people crisis which is being unfairly labeled.

Labeling the dogs and taking them out of the hands of responsible and loving owners would do just as much good in this world as making guns illegal so that only those who purchase them on the black market have them... Different issues, but basically the same deal.

I do not own a gun... it just isn't me, but certainly those who are responsible citizens who want to own one should be able to...

We could go off on a tangent and ban absolutely everything that could be considered in a crisis situation.

Drinking and driving is really bad. I do not think anyone would argue with you there... If we banned motorvehicles and went back to horses that should take care of that, right? Maybe have to watch out to ensure that there aren't any evil biting horse breeds, just in case... they do have big teeth, ya know.

Music and TV are blamed for violence, let's just cut the bull and ban them both! problem solved, right?

Come on...

I did not go out of my way to get a pit bull, it was just by chance as I wanted to save the life of that cute, lively, scrawny little homeless guy at the pound. I am glad that I did...

Dogs are living creatures with feelings... To blame an entire breed for the problems of a few bad owners is just as bad as blaming an entire race for a problem of a few.

Prin
September 5th, 2006, 12:47 AM
Dog breeds are creations human beings, and given enough time, (as long as dogs, or wolves, even, survive) any dog breed could be re-createdUmm, actually no. A lot of the breeds that our breeds originated from are extinct, thus recreating certain resulting breeds would be impossible. :shrug:

Your post is exactly what pitbull ban fighters are trying to get people to understand- generalizations don't get anybody anywhere. Do you have stats on how many breeders are breeding aggressive pits versus breeding docile, non-aggressive pits? How can you know that the majority is on the bad side?

What about people who breed aggressive chis or cockers? They might not do it for dog fighting, but they still do it.

Cockers are on the list of dogs that are most likely to bite. Should we ban them too?

We'll end up banning all dogs, and then we'll move on to cats. And then maybe ferrets. You know, I know a couple of vicious ferrets- let's make a general rule about ferrets using them as a model. :rolleyes:

My point is, it's not by banning different breeds that less kids or people in general will end up in the hospital from dog bites. Why not go at the BYBs and the puppymillers who are unethically breeding aggressive dogs? Why not? Because the government is making money off of each puppymill sale, that's why. Economics. Even if they are the root of the problem, the government never strikes there. :confused: :frustrated: And the BYBs never get any punishment because there aren't enough laws against it and even if there were, there aren't enough inspectors to enforce them anyway.

The whole animal welfare/cruelty issue in Canada is disgusting, IMO. We let the government attack at the consumer level, while it's sitting there making a profit off the backs of dogs that never deserved to be born into such inhumane conditions. It's all just sick, really.

end rant/

edited to add:

And for responsibility of ownership- that goes with the animal cruelty laws. How many dogs that have attacked had NOT been to a vet in a year prior to the attack? How many were neutered? How many of them had been to obedience school or were properly trained? Those are the questions you ask- NOT "what breed was it?"

MyBirdIsEvil
September 5th, 2006, 01:11 AM
If pit bull people want to lessen the probability that pit bulls will become "extinct," they need to either change pit bulls radically or control who gets pit bulls or both.

They should change the American Pit bull terrier standard (UKC) and the AmStaff (AKC) standard to make dog aggression in the breed a DISQUALIFICATION.

Um, you're assuming that most of the "pit bulls" that are involved in dog bites even FIT the breed standard of American Pit Bull Terriers. What is changing the breed standard going to do if a bunch of "thugs" are breeding them just to fight, with no regard for breed standard. And you're assuming that the people that breed dogs for dog fighting even CARE that it's against the law to possess the dogs.

Drugs are outlawed here too, it really makes a big difference with the people standing on the corner selling 'em doesn't it? "Oh no man! They banned drugs! We gotta stop dealin'!"

Oh hey! For that matter DOG FIGHTING is illegal. So these people shouldn't even BE breeding dogs to fight, right?

Give me a break. There are several people trying to establish the American Pit Bull Terrier as it's own breed and change it's reputation, and these people aren't breeding the dogs to be aggressive. What the reputable breeders are doing has NO bearing on what people breeding for dog fighting or any other illegal or unacceptable activity are doing.

How is a ban like that supposed to be enforced anyway? How do you know what a pit bull is when there's so many varying qualities depending on the breeder? And then you have to assume that whoever is enforcing it can identify an actual pitbull. There's also a difference between a "pit bull" and an "American Pit Bull Terrier". Outlawing registered APBT's means that the ones bred by reputable people and owned by responsible owners will be banned. Outlawing "pit bulls" will have no effect since there is no breed standard for a pit bull. A pit bull generally means a dog that loosely fits a certain look and is bred to fight other dogs. People that breed these don't care if they're outlawed or not, as dog fighting is also outlawed. Also, if you own an aggressive dog that's likely to kill or seriously injure someone you're either not going to care about the ban or you're going to try and make ANY dog you own aggressive.

Way too many people say "There ought to be a law."

Prin
September 5th, 2006, 01:13 AM
And then you have to assume that whoever is enforcing it can identify an actual pitbull.I think the policy now is, "When in doubt, just kill it.":sad: :mad:

MyBirdIsEvil
September 5th, 2006, 01:22 AM
I think the policy now is, "When in doubt, just kill it."

It doesn't help when Pit Bulls bear a striking resemblance to other breeds if you don't know what you're looking it.

I saw an animal cops show on animal planet and this guy had a pair of american bulldogs. They were well socialized friendly and non-aggressive but there was a pitbull ban so the dogs were confiscated. They told him he had to bring in registration papers to prove they weren't pitbulls.
He brought in papers and the animal control officer said something like "come on man, I know they're pitbulls" WTF? He brought in papers and everything they just wouldn't accept it? These dogs weren't bred for fighting and weren't even listed under the ban but because they "looked" like pitbulls they wanted to euthanize them.
How is someone supposed to prove their dog isn't a pitbull if the registration papers aren't enough?
That's the problem, you get to a point when whoever is in charge can just say "nope, you can't prove it, sorry".

Cygnet
September 5th, 2006, 06:30 AM
I absolutely agree that the problem is with people. That's why laws are necessary to protect pit bulls from people. We don't pass laws to regulate the conduct of dogs, after all. They can't even read laws. We pass laws to regulate the conduct of people.

I disagree with those of you who say there isn't any pit bull crisis. Even if pit bulls weren't regularly making the headlines with attacks on human beings and other pets, and even if they weren't being banned many places and their owners weren't being denied insurance, according to the Missouri Pit Bull Rescue website 200 pit bulls per day are killed in Los Angeles shelters alone. (In fairness, I have seen the figure elsewhere put at "only" 120 pit bulls a day dying in Los Angeles shelters). That means that there is virtual non-stop killing of unwanted pit bulls in Los Angeles shelters. This isn't because of some evil politician who hates pit bulls. This is because of all the pit bull "lovers" who breed them in such a horribly irresponsible way.

I have no idea (and I don't think anybody does) what percentage of those 200 pit bulls sitting on death row who will die today in Los Angeles were bred for fighting and which were just bred to make a little money for the breeder. Some were obviously bred for both purposes. But I know that there are way, way, way too many pit bulls being bred, and I haven't seen the pit bull community come up with any solutions for this crisis that recognizes the unique problems pit bulls have and cause.

The prevalence of dog fighting can, all by itself, justify strong regulations on pit bulls. For those of you who say "dog fighting is already illegal, just bust the dog fighters," that is extraordinarily hard and expensive and problematic. Here is a recent article about that: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4161287.html . And when a dogfighter is busted, and his dogs are seized, many rural shelters (and big time dog fighters tend to be rural) don't have the resources or budget to care for his dogs pending trial. Sometimes shelters find themselves doing nothing but caring for pit bulls (virtually all of whom are doomed, of course) for the months or years that it takes to bring a dog fighter to trial. The doomed pit bulls fill the shelter (and usually require expensive additional security because dog fighters often try to steal them back) and shelter staff have to put down lots and lots of adoptable homeless dogs.

For folks who claim that if pit bulls are banned, dog fighters and those who want a dog for a weapon will just go on to another breed, that doesn't seem to have happened in Denver. Go to the Denver Dumb Friends League website and check out which dogs are in the shelter as strays (the strays represent a good cross section of the irresponsibly owned dogs in any community). Typically there are way fewer pit bulls than at other large, urban shelters (where shelter canine populations can sometimes be 60% or more pit bulls) but there doesn't seem to be any noticable increase in filas or tosas or presa canarios. What seems to have happened in Denver is that with fewer pit bulls available as status symbols for people who think a dog is a good accessory to look tough, the canine arms race has de-escalated and people who want to look tough have gone on to other accessories to accomplish that.

People who say that regulations should target alldogs "to be fair," never answer the question "to whom are you worried about being fair?" A law (such as that passed in San Francisco, which is the kind of law I advocate) that requires the spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except registered show dogs doesn't adversely affect any responsible pit bull owner or responsibly owned pit bull. They don't even have to do anything that they wouldn't already do. The only people who are adversely affected by this breed specific law are the people who are causing 200 (or 120) pit bulls to die every day in Los Angeles. Why are you so concerned about protecting them? Isn't it time that somebody in the pit bull community cared about protecting the dogs? The reality is that the kind of sweeping reform necessary to protect pit bulls will never be passed in most communities for all dogs. This is because politicians and others recognize the reality that your Aunt Josephine's pug whom she breeds every year or so isn't the problem. The pugs don't hurt anybody seriously (no pug has ever killed a person in the US, that I can tell) and they don't end up in the shelter. When they do end up in the shelter, they are quickly adopted by people who feel lucky to have gotten them. So while Aunt Josephine may well be a backyard breeder, and we dog people may wish she were more responsible (get those titles and health screens first, Aunt Josephine!) , her behavior isn't causing any public crisis in the way that the irresponsible breeding of pit bulls is.

And, no, I am not assuming that people who breed pit bulls irresponsibly care about breaking the law. Dog fighters obviously don't. I think it is a stretch to claim that all of the backyard breeders of pit bulls would intentionally flaunt the law. Surely some of them would stop doing it if they were told that breeding their unregistered pit bulls was illegal? But even if none of them did, the reason we have laws (rather than suggestions) is to force people to do stuff they wouldn't do on their own. Note that the article (linked above) about the Texas dog fighter (alleged, I guess) states that even if authorities had known he had 200 plus pit bulls chained on his property with no good reason, there was nothing they could have done about it because he wasn't breaking any law. That is....wrong.

And, no, I don't know how many pit bulls are being bred for aggression and dangerousness and how many are being bred for sweet temperaments. I know that some are being bred for dangerousness, but I can't tell you what percentage. What I can say is that the percentage of pit bulls who are being bred by anything approaching a responsible person is so microscopic as to be laughable (if it weren't more appropriately something to cry about). One way we know this is by noting that the total number of pit bulls whose hips have been OFAed (and all responsible pit bull breeders either OFA or PennHIP hips, wouldn't you agree?) since OFA started registering dogs is less than four thousand. (Compare with over eleven thousand bernese mountain dogs--where do you find a shelter where 60% of the population is Bernese Mountain dogs?) So every three weeks, Los Angeles shelters alone kill more pit bulls than should have been bred in the entire country in the past thirty years.

So we know there is a crisis. So, what to do about it? Who here is against my proposal: Mandatory microchipping for all pit bulls (responsible owners already do that). Mandatory spay/neuter for all unregistered (AKC AmStaffs/UKC-PR APBTs) except show dogs? And while you are at it, change the breed standard to make dog aggression a disqualification.