Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Attention Big Dog Owners

LavenderRott
June 1st, 2004, 12:15 PM
This is new BSL that is being proposed Province-wide (I am not Canadian, and I forgot which province, sorry) that will label rottweilers, pit bulls, german shepherds and akitas as dangerous dogs. This dogs will be severly restricted with short leash requirements, no socialization and muzzles. While it may not affect your province yet, you can bet that if it passes, it will spread to other provinces.

proposed dangerous dog law (http://www1.gnb.ca/legis/bill/editform-e.asp?ID=273&legi=55&num=1)

The link for the lawmakers in that area is:
MLA's (http://app.infoaa.7700.gnb.ca/gnb/pub/ListMLA1.asp)

Also, you can bet that if this passes, when dog bites continue to be a "problem" then more breeds will be added to the list.

mona_b
June 1st, 2004, 12:50 PM
It's in New Brunswick.

If I recall,they tried to ban Rotties there at one point in time,but it didn't work.

Oh,and the GSD was not on the list.

I have a feeling it won't pass.

There have been many places in Canada that have banned certain breeds,even here in Ontario,but these breeds still live in many of those places.It never fell through legaly.

Lucky Rescue
June 1st, 2004, 12:57 PM
My gawd! The scariest part of all that is this:
"restricted dog" means any dog that is certified by, or would be certified upon request of, a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine in New Brunswick to be primarily of the breed


Vets are going to determine breed? We are really in trouble now.

Lawmakers can't control vicious, greedy, immoral human beings, so must take it out on dogs. Won't work.

doberescue
June 1st, 2004, 02:07 PM
"Vets are going to determine breed? We are really in trouble now."

LOL!!!!! so true!

mastifflover
June 1st, 2004, 02:34 PM
One more way the government is trying to run our lives. If more people would train their children to not tease and provoke our pets their would be a lot less children bitten. I know it is not always the kids fault, but I constantly see kids doing these things and then they get bit and there parents blame the dog surprise surpise. I personally am sick of parents not taking responsibility for their children, I take responsiblity for my dog.

mona_b
June 1st, 2004, 02:56 PM
So true.

BUT there are also irrisponsible dog owners out there who put aggression into their dogs.And this I have seen.I have seen unsocialized dogs with aggression...They walk their dogs and these dogs snarl,bark and growl at people.And the owners don't do a damn thing.I have had to cross the road because of these types of dogs.Now imagine the damage that they can cause if they got loose?

I got bit twice by a friend of mines Bull Terrier mix..I was about 14-15..This was a loving,socialized, well trained dog that knew me.And I didn't do a damn thing to be bit.Thank god it wasn't serious.And this dog was at my house..I'm sorry,but there is such a thing as an unprevoked attack.

mastifflover
June 1st, 2004, 05:02 PM
Your right there are *******s who do train their dogs to be aggressive and that is totally irresponsible. But there are also people who intentionally frightnen, torment and tease these animals and then when they get bit it is the dogs fault. I have experienced this with a little demon child who lived next door and eventually he got bit and in my eyes he deserved it. Luckily it was not my dog but another one that he had been teasing (Mine was not the only one he teased) and luckily I had reported this to the police and Humane Society since his mother did not see a problem with his behaviour. Of course the parents wanted to sue and the judge shot them right down because enough pet owners banded together to prove it was the childs fault not the dogs. This is pretty common behaviour for some children who have nothing better to do with there time. Maybe the parents should teach pet safety instead of sitting them in front of the t.v. (babysitter of the decade)

Luba
June 1st, 2004, 05:37 PM
I'm wondering who thinks of these things in the beginning.

Does this have anything to do with LavR you think the little boy that was mauled by rottie's a few years back in NB?

Kona Dawg
June 1st, 2004, 05:57 PM
I breifly read through what is proposed in the NB legislation. In some instances I
agree with what they are trying to do. If you have to go to the trouble to be registered to have one of these breeds, it will go a long way to prevent alot of the abuse and mistreatment that causes these attacks. Like everything else in life, its the law abiding and moraly good people that pay.


Just to put this legislation in perspective, this is the link to Ottawa's


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-4/SOR-2002-164/148569.html

LavenderRott
June 1st, 2004, 09:16 PM
I breifly read through what is proposed in the NB legislation. In some instances I
agree with what they are trying to do. If you have to go to the trouble to be registered to have one of these breeds, it will go a long way to prevent alot of the abuse and mistreatment that causes these attacks. Like everything else in life, its the law abiding and moraly good people that pay.


Just to put this legislation in perspective, this is the link to Ottawa's


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-4/SOR-2002-164/148569.html

What this says is that if you own one of the breeds listed, you are not allowed to take it out in public unless it is on a short leash and muzzled. It also says that you can not socialize these dogs. These things will cause dogs to become aggressive.

People who have these breeds because they WANT a dog that is aggressive and abuse them to make sure they are aggressive are NOT going to get expensive insurance! They are going to get a different breed of dog! It is not going to do anything to stop aggressive dogs from attacking anyone.

Law abiding citizens with dogs that are raised and trained to be good citizens should not have to pay extra.

Yes, Luba, the man who started this is claiming that it is because of that little boy. While I understand the anger and the heartbreak, there was some type of committee put together and recommendations were made to prevent an incident like that from happening again. BSL was NOT part of the committee's recommendations. And from what I understand, none of the actual recommendations were implemented either.

Luba
June 1st, 2004, 09:39 PM
I took the time to actually read through this, these exerpts stood out at me:

outdoors, muzzled and secured by a chain fixed to the property that prevents the restricted dog from coming closer than two metres to the apparent boundary of the property

This is just common sense with ANY dog duh
The owner of a restricted dog shall be strictly liable for any personal injury caused by the restricted dog, and in any civil action it shall be no defence to a claim for personal injury that the restricted dog had not previously bitten, attacked, or chased any person


WHAT??
Upon the request of a peace officer or animal control officer, an owner shall present and deliver into the hands of the requesting peace officer or animal control officer proof of liability insurance pursuant to subsection (1) within twenty-four hours of the request.

sammiec
June 2nd, 2004, 09:48 AM
Complete idiots! :mad: I can't understand why these breed bans make people feel better. Responsible dog owers can complain until they are blue in teh face and it doesn't mean crap! If you have a mix breed that is very aggressive - like I mentioned in one of my other threads - this dog very well has the potential to attack and maul an animal or a child, but that's fine, it's not required to be chained and muzzled....but for those horrible beasts, dangerous dogs... they have to be tagged, chained and muzzled if outdoors. Gimme a friggin break. Nothing better to help out the pitbull breed. I have a question - why aren't child molesters and murderers given the same "respect" as these dogs??? Holy crap, I'm just fuming now... but hey, they only mentioned staffordshire terriers, not american pitbull terriers.... guess I'm off the hook.... ridiculous..

Luba
June 2nd, 2004, 09:51 AM
Ya but you know why, because these idiots probably think Staffs are PBT's lmao

sammiec
June 2nd, 2004, 10:00 AM
you got it chick - can't enforce something they know nothing about...

sammiec
June 2nd, 2004, 10:21 AM
http://www.safety-council.org/info/child/dogs.html

This link talks about breed bans and viscous dogs, but funny enough, I think this writter might have some common sense....

mona_b
June 2nd, 2004, 10:38 AM
But Luba,guess what.They are the same breed.

The American Pit Bull Terrier had the name changed to the American Stafforshire Terrier in 1972.They did it to distingish it from the Stafforshire Bull Terrier.

Just thought I would share that...... :D

sammiec
June 2nd, 2004, 10:57 AM
Lucky has posted this before, but they are actually different "breeds"....

http://www.workingpitbull.com/amstaffpit.htm

cutelittlemako
June 2nd, 2004, 11:32 AM
Yeah, all breed information sites (even pets.ca's) post them as different breeds. Their physical traits are different and their temparements are different too. It's the first time I ever hear (or see) somebody say that they are the same breed. I have always read otherwise.

Luba
June 2nd, 2004, 11:52 AM
WHAT??? They are the same breed???

REALLY I thought LR explained it to me before that they weren't. Okay now I'm confused :confused:

cutelittlemako
June 2nd, 2004, 11:56 AM
No, they are different breeds. Like Bullmastiff and Mastiff, not the same breed. They just have the same origins.

mastifflover
June 2nd, 2004, 01:48 PM
If every responsible owner of these breeds which they claim to be aggressive and vicious (Bulls;;;;) did not register and did not obey any of the implementation of this law it will probably be as sucessful as the gun registry. Which by the way seems to be falling by the wayside because it is proving useless, criminals don't register their guns.Another waste of tax payers money.

sammiec
June 2nd, 2004, 01:58 PM
Very interesting....
An excellent point - this breed ban will only keep the reputable owners from having such wonderful pets, and force the ownership "underground" where only drug dealers, criminals and all around bad people will get to destroy the integrity of these dogs - but we will have to fight this to the death and all our words will be falling on deaf ears....
Notice since they really have been pushing gun registration in TO, the gun violence reported has gone through the roof, like every friggin day some idiot runs around with their gun trying to gain a little more respect... friggin idiots, now I'm getting mad again... :mad: (include some smoke...)

deerclan
June 2nd, 2004, 04:38 PM
My 2 cents on this subject from a FirstNation point of view is what my GrandFather told me as a little boy "It's better to die in battle than to grow old knowing you could of done something" :mad:

Trying to deal with the Government is like banging your head against the wall

DeerClan

AM04
June 3rd, 2004, 08:52 PM
One more way the government is trying to run our lives. If more people would train their children to not tease and provoke our pets their would be a lot less children bitten. I know it is not always the kids fault, but I constantly see kids doing these things and then they get bit and there parents blame the dog surprise surpise. I personally am sick of parents not taking responsibility for their children, I take responsiblity for my dog.


That is so true. When I lived with my friend and her family, they owned a german shepherd and the neighbor's kid was so bad. He'd always pull his tail, and his hair (He's long haired) and poke at his eyes and stuff. Eventually, Zeus got fed up and bit him. But it didn't draw any blood or leave any puncture wounds. Just a grab on his hand to tell him to stop. The kid's dad got defensive and put the dog in a headlock, and the dog bit him. The neighbor's tried forcing them to put Zeus to sleep. So they took it to court, and the courts decided that he bit the man because of the situation, and they basically said the kid deserved it. The only thing that ended up happening was the neigbor's kid wasn't allowed around Zeus anymore, and the neighbor was to apologize for doing that to their dog, and zeus was to apologize with a doggy kiss.. But the neighbor wont go back over unless the dog is in the house, or the garage.


the image attached is a picture of me and Zeus. He's 5 years old. I've only known him for 2 and a half years, but the first time I went to my friends house we instantly fell in love. Lol, how could he not with all the belly rubs he got :)

Babs
August 9th, 2004, 10:58 AM
In 1996, I adopted what the Humane Society labelled as a "Pit Bull Cross". We brought her up in very socialized surroundings, and with cats.

To this day, she has never bit or shown anything but affection to anyone, including complete strangers.

She has been bitten twice by other dogs. The first time was my grandmother's unsocialized Black Lab who bit her in the hindquarters. My dog's reaction was to run between my legs, shaking.

The second time was by my parents' Llasa Apso (sp?), who bit her in the jowls, drawing blood and leaving a scar. Again, her reaction was to run to me, shaking not knowing what to do.

Both bites upon my dog were unprovoked, delivered during the initial "sniffing" when the dogs were introduced. Both biting dogs were poorly socialized.

I'd like to know when the government is going to introduce mandatory Pet Socialization sessions for every new puppy owner, or perhaps even before puppies are allowed to be sold.

Neither my grandmother or my parents are violent to their dogs. They are just very private people who do not have many visitors. In my parent's case, I believe the dog is alone far too often, with no other pets in the household to "share" with. I believe positive socialization is an important part of any dog's discipline.

BTW: Here's a couple pictures of my "terrifying" Pit Bull Cross:

http://www.babayaaga.com/images/lokiears.jpg http://www.babayaaga.com/images/lokiweb.jpg

Lucky Rescue
August 9th, 2004, 11:07 AM
Oh, what a sweetie!! She looks crossed with Boxer.:)

Babs
August 9th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Luckily, that's what the Vet said too. Luckily for registration purposes that is :(

glasslass
August 9th, 2004, 01:38 PM
If you have to go to the trouble to be registered to have one of these breeds, it will go a long way to prevent alot of the abuse and mistreatment that causes these attacks.

(from a small-dog owner snooping) I would hope the registration would not be conducted the way gun control was handled in Russia in the early 20's according to my hubby's grandmother. First they were required to register, then the government required the guns to be turned over. The registration was just to pinpoint where they were. Irresponsible owners won't bother registering either. Just the responsible owners will register, and pay, and their dogs aren't really the ones who should be targeted.