August 13th, 2008, 11:13 AM
It seems that more people speaking up for pitbulls :thumbs up Here is an article in the Kingston Whig Standard today:
Owners are the problem, not a dog breed
Posted 2 hours ago
This is in response to D. R. Dafoe's letter "Pitbull attack did damage" (Aug. 9). I feel Dafoe has little factual information on pitbulls and based much of what he wrote in ignorance.
I am the guardian of a loving 5 1 /2-year-old American Staffordshire terrier named Charlie. I am also a new mommy of a 2 1 /2-month-old baby girl. Charlie is loving and gentle toward my daughter and has never shown aggression toward people or other animals.
These dogs were America's favourite breed in the 1940s. Pictures of the pitbull could be seen on war posters, and advertisements everywhere. The old children's showThe Little Rascalsfeatured Petey, a pitbull who was one of the gang. This breed of dog was nicknamed the "nanny dog" because of pitbulls' gentle demeanour around young children.
Unfortunately, much like everything humans make into a fad, this poor breed has suffered because of greed. People with selfish motives realized money could be made from breeding pups, and the backyard breeder was born. Pups from such breeders would end up in the hands of anyone who would pay cash for them, including drug dealers and gang members. These people saw a powerful animal, and decided to manipulate the breed's love for and loyalty to the owner and use this animal for their own greedy purposes, causing these poor animals to become aggressive because of the abuse they received from their owners. In fact, any animal that is hit, yelled at or refused food will become aggressive. This shows that nurture is a strong predictor of aggression, not nature.
I would like to meet the person who informed Dafoe that pitbulls show euphoric behaviour after a violent attack. Is there any statistical evidence of pitbulls showing this behaviour? This claim is untrue.
If you research Statistics Canada's list of the top 10 dog breeds that attacked humans, mainly children, pitbulls and related breeds are not on the list. As for Dafoe being thankful that the pitbull that attacked his wife did not "lock onto" her, it is true that these dogs have powerful jaws and are persistent, as are all terrier breeds, but there is no such thing as one of these dogs "locking" its jaws on someone -that is a myth.
I am sorry that Dafoe's wife had such an unfortunate experience involving a pitbull, but any large-breed dog can cause serious bodily harm by biting.
If someone was attacked or physically harmed by a person with red hair, should we all fear for our lives when we cross paths with a person with red hair? That would be ridiculous, as is the prejudice against certain breeds of dogs. The treatment of these dogs is comparable to genocide
Until people realize the problem does not lie with a particular breed but with dog owners, attacks by any breed will never end. It breaks my heart and sickens me to see that "man's best friend" is too often abused and is made into man's worst enemy by those who react to media reports without knowledge and who base their reaction on ignorance.
Melina Djian Kingston
August 13th, 2008, 11:17 AM
Found the article by the DR Dafoe on Aug 9 which this M Dijian is replying to:
Ban on 'pit bulls' erodes civil rights
Posted 4 days ago
BAN ON 'PIT BULLS' ERODES CIVIL RIGHTS
Re: the editorial "Enforce law on pit bulls" (Aug. 6).
Serious attacks by any dogs, including the so-called, non-breed "pit bulls," are always surprising - because they are so rare. We seem to average about one per year in Ontario, with the odd blip, just as we average one dog bite-related fatality across Canada annually. Would that automobiles, ladders, bedroom slippers and swimming pools were as safe as dogs.
What editorials such as the Whig-Standard's, in all their hyperbolic glory, show is that the ill-advised, ridiculous witch hunt against owners of a nonexistent breed of dog is an abysmal failure, as every expert organization in Ontario and beyond predicted. The law banning "pit bulls" fails to control negligent owners. It discriminates against citizens because of the shape of their dog and not the dog's actions. It gives members of the public, who know little about the subject, a false sense of security. It diverts resources from enforcement of simple, fair, universal laws. It leads to the inhumane treatment of dogs and to second-class legal status for their owners.
The Dog Owners' Liability Act as it was framed before Attorney General Michael Bryant banned "pit bulls" was more than adequate to address the kind of situation described in the editorial. It was never enforced or even invoked.
It is the height of folly to believe that a dog is inherently dangerous solely because of its vaguely defined physical appearance, since all dogs are alike genetically. Moreover, aggressive behaviour is learned, not inherited, according to the latest scientific research.
To a dog person, the three breeds named in Ontario's legislation are so different from each other that virtually any short-haired dog can be construed as a "pit bull" - which is exactly the point. Animal rights organizations lobby for dog breed bans at all levels of government. It suits their agenda of eliminating pet ownership. They manipulate government officials and media people in order to further their goals.
The term "pit bull terrier" was struck as unconstitutionally vague by Ontario's Superior Court of Justice last July, as was the infamous identification section, Section 19, of Bryant's law, which was found to violate the right to trial fairness. The case to have the law overturned moves to the Ontario Court of Appeal in September.
"Pit bull" bans are nothing more than a distraction that allow for the erosion of civil rights: the presumption of innocence, freedom of mobility, protection from search and seizure without due process, equal protection under the law and more. The mythical "pit bull" is a well-crafted red herring and the subject of a longstanding stealth campaign by those whose motives are anything but benign. It also makes an excellent precedent for use against other property owners.
Selma Mulvey Burford
PIT BULL ATTACK DID DAMAGE
Continued After Advertisement Below
I commend the Whig-Standard for its editorial "Enforce law on pitbulls" (Aug. 6). My wife would definitely second much of what was written about the character of the beast. She was attacked by a pit bull in early April while helping my youngest daughter, who had just taken over a paper route. She considered it fortunate that it was her, and not our daughter, who had to suffer through the ordeal.
The dog was not on a leash but it was inside a house - or it was, at least, until it managed to crash through a storm door and launch itself upon my wife. It was about an 85-pound pit bull. My wife was retreating out the driveway, having deposited a paper in the mailbox. She heard the crash when the dog hit the door and turned around to see what was going on. She barely managed to elevate her arm to protect her face and throat as the dog propelled itself at her. The weight behind the charge knocked her to the pavement - a mixed blessing, as the dog was unable to lock its jaws on to her because its momentum caused it to lose it grip as it passed over her. It then attacked her upper thigh.
Some quick-thinking people from across the street rushed to her aid. Their numbers were enough to cow the dog into breaking off its attack. However, the dog's initial lunge had flayed back a mouth-size piece of flesh on her forearm, which required 13 stitches to reattach. A 14th stitch was required to close a puncture wound in her thigh.
The physical healing took weeks. The mental trauma has been poignant and will probably continue for a good deal longer. The physician who attended her said it could have been much worse if the dog had been able to lock its jaws on to her because there would have been deeper nerve and tissue damage. Another good thing was that the dog was up to date on its shot, so rabies wasn't an issue.
The dog was eventually put down. Of interest was that the individual at the dog pound who looked after it during the quarantine period marvelled at the dog's even temperament. However, someone pointed out to my wife that this is not usual. Apparently after a particularly violent attack, dogs of this breed will slip into something like a state of euphoria.
D. R. Dafoe Kingston
August 13th, 2008, 11:25 AM
Article from Aug 6:
Enforce law on pitbulls
Posted 7 days ago
AWEEKEND PITBULL ATTACK IN OTTAWA SHOULD come as no surprise to anyone, even though the animals are required by law to be on a leash and muzzled at all times when in public.
It could only be a matter of time before a similar attack takes place here in Kingston. Though many owners appear to be complying with the muzzle requirement, the sight of unrestrained pitbulls on city sidewalks is not that uncommon.
News reports from Ottawa said that the dog was about to lunge at a woman after she had been encouraged by its owner to pet it. The woman's boyfriend called to the dog to distract it. The dog attacked him, clamped down on his arm and refused to let go.
The animal, a pitbull mix, wouldn't let go of the man until a police officer arrived and beat it off with a baton. The dog then attacked the officer, who shot it twice.
But even then the dog didn't die. It was later captured and destroyed.
Pitbulls, or Staffordshire bull terriers, are supposed to be a dying breed in Ontario. In 2004, the provincial government passed legislation, in reaction to a spate of attacks, making it illegal to breed them here. All
existing animals were to be spayed or neutered.
Pitbull owners argued at the time that their breed was getting a bad rap and that the only dogs involved in attacks were those trained as guard animals.
The fact is, these dogs have been bred to attack and kill, and are renowned for their ability to clamp down on their prey and hold on tight -just as the one did in Ottawa on the weekend.
It was more than reasonable to require the remaining pitbulls to be muzzled in public. No matter how good-tempered they might be with their families, these dogs are unpredictable. Like loaded guns, they can go off at any time -with terrible results.
Prior to the weekend attack, Ottawa councillor Bob Monette had pointed out a flaw in the legislation: that the fines and potential jail time were too high to be effective. Having noted a number of the animals still being walked off-leash around his city, Monette called for smaller $200 fines that would allow police to deal immediately with non-compliant owners. This is an idea that should be seriously considered.
Continued After Advertisement Below
What pitbull owners have to recognize is that most people don't share their confidence in their animals.
According to the news reports from the weekend, the Ottawa pitbull owner trusted her dog to be petted by a stranger.
But when the dog attacked, she didn't have the strength to control it.
Today, the pitbull-mix dogs walking unleashed and unmuzzled in Kingston are accidents waiting to happen.
No, correct that. Accidents are events you can't predict.
If the Ottawa dog had been muzzled according to the law, the hazard would have been eliminated.
Over the past four years, some pitbull owners seem to have thought they're above the law.
We look to our city police, though they can't be everywhere and see everything, to enforce compliance with the law whenever they see unmuzzled pitbulls in public.
Letters? Send them to whiged @ thewhig.com.
- - -
Some ownersare takingtheir dogs outwithoutmuzzling them
August 13th, 2008, 11:34 AM
What kills me is how many of these dogs aren't really pit bulls. And what is to stop these people from going out and getting a similar breed, such as a cane corso, or dogo. If the people want a muscular looking dog, to mistreat and turn aggressive there is not shortage of breeds to choose from.
August 13th, 2008, 12:04 PM
The writer in the last article states that it is more than reasonable to have pit bulls muzzled in public.
While I was on my bike ride last weekend, I was riding toward another lady on a bike and I thought her dog was running along side her while she biked. The biker screamed at me as I biked past her to "Tell that lady to get her Fu$$ing dog away from me" I was stunned but quickly found out why she was so angry. That dog turned and started trying to bite my feet almost causing an accident (I was going downhill at about 35KM per hour, and pavement hurts when hit at that speed). The owner had zero control over this Jack Russell/mix of about 35 lbs. The owner was screaming at her dog and the dog completely ignored her. The dog was off leash on a public walkway.
So anywho, my point is it is not necesssarily pitbulls that should be muzzled, but all dogs whose owners can't control and all dogs should be leashed when walked on public walkways. Nobody can predict with 100% certainty how their dog will react. It really bugs me that this author is isolating pit bulls and it is this reason the public is so scared of them.
August 13th, 2008, 12:40 PM
I have to second aslan on saying what makes people think it's a pit bull?
I'm so tried of people saying automatically "it was a pit bull or put bull mix"
WTF? Look, I can't tell a bearded collie from an English sheepdog! If a bearded collie bit me I'd probably say it was an English sheepdog, because that's what it looks like to me. So then the media gets hold of it and blames English sheepdogs for biting and all of these dogs get blamed, when in reality it was my ignorance.
I think that's a lot of what happens with these situations. A lot of these dogs look similar so everyone just automatically think to blame pit bulls.
I've been lunged at by lots of dogs, non have been pit bulls. In my apartment complex on my floor my neighbor has a boxer and another neighbor down the hall has a scotty. Who am I more wary of? The scotty! Whenever I see him he barks up a storm at me and lunges, all the while his owner apologizing to me. What does the boxer do? Yeah she lunges all right, but so she can lick me to death.
Stupid stupid people will never stop being lemmings and listening to the ignorant blah blah being put out by the media.:rolleyes:
August 13th, 2008, 01:04 PM
Not only can I not tell the difference between an Old English and a bearded collie, I had problems with an Aussie Shepard and Old English :laughing:
I didn't even know what a pit bull was until I started to look for pictures when the breed ban was coming into effect here in Ontario. A lab or boxer cross can look like a pit bull to me :o
August 13th, 2008, 01:11 PM
Me too! These days any dog that has "that look" is branded as the evil pit bull. Phuleez!:rolleyes: I wonder if the media just sits and waits for reports to come in about either pits or look alike's so they can just immediately start to feed that hungry ignorant crowd.
August 13th, 2008, 02:57 PM
Does it surprise you that people are so mindless they believe all the crap spoon fed to them. This was proven when the PB law was passed so easily even though it was opposed by so many that did know the facts and not the myths presented to us. Remember every attack was by a pit or staff even if it was not, did we ever see a retraction, NO. It is nice to see a paper willing to print the other side. Because there always is one