Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Stop Pit Bull Ban in Ontario

Mistruzzi
August 31st, 2004, 09:00 PM
:eek: The Attorney General for Ontario, Michael Bryant is trying to ban pit bulls,Am.Staffs and Bull Terriers in ALL of Ontario. If you don't want this to happen,please email or call him! The email is michael.bryant@jus.gov.on.ca

Babs
August 31st, 2004, 10:00 PM
And post these, wherever you live. Print them out and post them on cars, poles, community bulletin boards, in shopping malls, wherever flyers can be posted make sure they are seen.

Click on the PDF link to download a Printer-Friendly version:

http://www.babayaaga.com/images/bslposter_to_1.pdf
http://www.babayaaga.com/images/bslposter_to_1.jpg

http://www.babayaaga.com/images/bslposter_to_2.pdf
http://www.babayaaga.com/images/bslposter_to_2.jpg

Pit Advocate
September 1st, 2004, 11:20 AM
Does anyone know of any groups or organization that intends to fight this ban? I am outraged by the ignorance of many people, including this Ontario politician who is clearly using the pitbull issue as a way to gain popularity. I am also annoyed at the many ignorant people who are supporting his cause. Since this pitbull issue has resurfaced a couple of days ago, I have gotten many strange looks from people in my neighborhood, as well as a few remarks of how my dog "kills people." My dog would neevr hurt a fly! He is great with people, especially kids..and is the biggest baby! In fact, from my daily walks with him, I notice that it is usually the smaller dogs, like Jack Russel Terriers or Chihuahuas that are more hyper and problematic. Please...if anyone knows of any advocacy groups that would fight this, please let me know!

sammiec
September 1st, 2004, 11:31 AM
PA:
I too have been a victim of stupid people. :( :mad: Yesterday in my elevator I got on my with Briggs her tail wagging and she was panting a man from the floor above was already on the elevator, he pretty much tried to climb the wall to get away from her - this is NOT the first time that they've encountered each other, but the first time that the man had this reaction... :rolleyes:
Another resident entered and we were talking about the issue and she just commented that I should watch the news at 6; a "gentleman" and his wife entered the elevator, he stopped and interrupted us by saying "what kinda dog is that?" I said "pit bull" like it was no big deal and started talking to the lady again. He starts yelling!!! "No. no, no!" He points at Briggs and says, "Those dogs are a MENACE, they should NOT be allowed in this building!" I smiled and just looked at him.
At this point I did not attempt to prove him wrong, in hind sight I should have, but I just was so surprised by the reaction. So, now at the ground floor the a-hole gets out and announces to everyone in the lobby! "Watch out, there's a pit bull in the elevator! Pit bull in the elevator!" There was like 5 or 6 people standing a waiting - nearly all of them have encountered Briggs at one time or another. They just stood there and stared at this IDIOT!! :mad:
So, he's blocking the door and won't let us out. The lady that I had been chatting with starts to get out, and "accidently" hits him with her cart... as we're walking away he is shouting to the other residents "That dog is dangerous, it's a menace and doesn't belong here!" Unfortunately I tend to be a little reserved sometimes when I am caught off guard so I just kept on my way - there's no reasoning to those jerks! :mad:

Mistruzzi
September 1st, 2004, 12:50 PM
The Dog Legislation Council of Canada fights Breed bans, they have a website. However, please email the Attorney General stating you are against the ban, because he said the majority of his emails are for the ban!His email is: michael.bryant@jus.gov.on.ca

LavenderRott
September 1st, 2004, 01:34 PM
REMEMBER---

Keep your letters free of emotion and based on facts that you can back up. No name calling. You don't want to come off sounding like a tree hugging freak. (Sorry, but it is true.)

Babs
September 1st, 2004, 01:38 PM
It's disgusting how powerful the media has become... and how they are permitted to weild that mighty sword to spread terror.

Had the news focused on the dog owner, rather than the dog itself, people might be a little less paranoid.

This is starting to sound exactly how people viewed Muslims just after 9/11.

mastifflover
September 1st, 2004, 04:45 PM
Lavender you are so right I emailed him a very direct and polite email stating the facts and not the fiction and suggested he need to speak with the cruelty investigators and animal care workers the people who are out there daily and know what they are talking about. I even suggest he tag along with them for a day and see how the laws protecting animals need to be updated and enforced.

Writing4Fun
September 1st, 2004, 06:36 PM
The NewVR is also running a poll today. The numbers so far are seriously pro-ban. :( Please log on to add your voices. Results will be aired tomorrow at 6:00. http://thenewvr.com/news/index.html

I watched the news broadcast today at 6:00. They were actually more neutral in their tone today. They interviewed the SPCA and spoke about some more "humane" alternatives (i.e. muzzling in public). The NewVR pointed out the muzzling by-law in Orillia and interviewed a young family with a Pitti and a Chi, showing them playing together, and showing their very young daughters feeding the Pitti cookies (who was a very good puppy and took the cookies with exceptional gentleness). :D

chico2
September 1st, 2004, 07:36 PM
Sammie,I am so sorry for your experience with ignorant people,it's beginning to sound like a modern day witch-hunt...and poor Briggs,I hope it does not effect her in any way,when people go hysterical just by the sight of her.
If you told people she's a Terrier,they probably would not even realize she's a Pittie :D

iRONKNiGHT
September 2nd, 2004, 08:27 AM
In case you missed it.. Click here (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctvVideo/CTVNews/canadaam_Pit_bull_ban_20040901/20040901/?video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2004/09/01/ctvvideologger1_143kbps_2004_09_01_1094035733.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2004/09/01/ctvvideologger1_45kbps_2004_09_01_1094035821.wmv&clip_start=00:16:16.74&clip_end=00:04:58.89&clip_id=ctvnews.20040901.00071000-00071945-clip4&clip_caption=Canada%20AM:%20%20Ontario%20Attorney% 20General%20Michael%20Bryant%20and%20Tim%20Trow%20 of%20the%20Toronto%20Humane%20Society) to view the video interview on Canada AM.

chico2
September 2nd, 2004, 08:54 AM
There is a quiet positive full-page article by Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star titled"Pit Bull owners on defensive"this morning.
I have no idea how to get it on here,but maybe someone else does :D

badger
September 2nd, 2004, 09:37 AM
Pit bull owners on defensive

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

You'd think killer sharks were swimming in our streets, the way the media and some people are carrying on about pit bulls.

Meanwhile, responsible owners of thousands of sweet and gentle dogs are feeling the bite.

"Every time pit bull owners go out with their dogs, they face public relations disasters," explains Kristine Crawford, a Palo Alto search and rescue pro with three pits who also work with terminally ill children. (See http://www.forpitssake.org.)

Take Toronto's Darlene Reid.

She walks my American Eskimo Sydney with her powerful pits, George and Fred. I don't fear for Syd, who has "the boys" by their cut-off cojones. As for them and me, well, let's just say there's been licking.

But now, Reid is more afraid for her dogs than we should be of them. Last Sunday while walking George and Fred near their Riverdale home, Darlene and her daughter were assaulted by two men.

It's just the latest attack. Two years ago, while the dogs were tethered outside a Danforth café, a man beat them with a stick. Last summer, some guy stubbed out his smoke on George's back.

"It's terrifying, and it's terrorizing my daughter," Reid says.

In each instance, George and Freddy stayed calm. Why? Because, even though they've been drafted as fighters, pit bulls and their cousins, the American Staffordshire and Staffordshire bull terriers, have been bred to be gentle to humans. Their handlers had to be able to safely stay in the pits and stop fights.

Still, the myths persist.

On Monday, after last weekend's attack in Toronto, Ontario's attorney-general, Michael Bryant, said he was contemplating a ban on pit bulls, calling them "dangerous weapons."

Since then, the Star, The National Post and the Globe and Mail have all howled for the outlawing of the breed.

"Make their breeding, sale and ownership illegal," demanded the Globe, as if government can afford to monitor any breeders.

"Insist that they be neutered," the Globe added, as if shelters aren't already overrun with unwanted dogs of all breeds.

There's no solution for pit bulls, said the Globe, but the final one: "Wipe them out."

Do that, and the macho morons who get pit bulls — and mistreat them — would just move to bigger, truly aggressive dogs.

The sad fact is, any dog, given irresponsible breeding and ownership and the wrong environment, might go bad.

"I am much more afraid of a cocker spaniel than I ever am of a pit bull," says Mychelle Blake, an animal behaviourist and pit bull owner in Lancaster, Penn. (http://www.AllEarsDogs.com).

According to the American Temperament Test Society (http://www.atts.org), beagles, border collies and bloodhounds, to name just three much loved breeds, score worse than pits.

But pits have the bad luck of being the most popular breed in urban North America, mostly because of backyard breeders out for a quick buck.

"If you looked at the sheer number of these dogs, if they were really that dangerous there would be attacks every day," observes Blake.

She says that you can't trust statistics such as that cited in Tuesday's Star, which claim pit bulls account for "almost half of all dog attacks ... yet they make up less than 1 per cent of the canine population."

That's because pit bulls are not registered with the American Kennel Club. And backyard breeders don't keep books.

What's more, pit bulls are often misidentified. I thought I knew them until I played the "Find The Pit Bull Game" at http://www.rescueeverydog.org. It took me nine tries.

Besides, Rottweilers are overtaking pit bulls in the fatal attack statistics. Will they be banned too? And what about the dogs that top the list after Rotties?

"Banning the breed won't change a thing," insists Toronto dog trainer Kirk Barclay, a pit bull owner who echoes the views of the Canada Safety Council and many humane society and veterinarian groups. In fact, most breed-specific bans have proved not to be effective, and are starting to be repealed in the United States.

"It all has to do with ownership," says Barclay, who advocates education and licensing for owners. "I train people; I don't train dogs."

As Darlene says, "Look up the leash. See who is attached to it. Then judge the dog."

mastifflover
September 2nd, 2004, 09:40 AM
Bottom line is everybody needs to email michael.bryant@jus.gov.on.ca You also need to sound articulate and educated, ranting and raving will do nothing for the cause. We want our opinions taken seriously you don't want to sound like one of the idiots who have trained these dogs to be vicious and aggressive. The point needs to be made that the breed is NOT people aggressive this is taught it is not in their genetic make-up. Also you need to make sure they realize by BSL they will push it pit fighting further underground and it is hard enough now to bust these people, this will make creulty investigators jobs harder and more dangerous.

chico2
September 2nd, 2004, 09:53 AM
I was reading this morning about the Kitchener BSL,in it it says anyone aquiering a Pit since april 1997 and has not removed it from the city will face a fine of up to $5.000,meaning???? You have a couple of choices,have the dog killed?sell your house and move? only to be faced with a ban in another city.....
I cannot even imagine the choices given,this is worse than I thought :mad:
I understood before,if you have a Pit you can keep it,only don't replace him if he dies,which is bad enough.But the Kitchener BSL-law is darn right inhumane :mad:

mastifflover
September 2nd, 2004, 10:24 AM
I guess you can give the city a choice that you are not giving up your dog but if they would like to buy your house at a fair market value you will move. They will also need to cover the costs of your move. I don't think they should be able to make you get rid of a pet you have had no matter how long you have owned it. I am sure that they will try to do this to somebody who has the financial resources to take them to court and test this law. What they are proposing is totally unfair and should be challenged.

Babs
September 2nd, 2004, 02:33 PM
"I guess you can give the city a choice that you are not giving up your dog but if they would like to buy your house at a fair market value you will move"

BRILLIANT!!!

Considering Ontario, out-of-province. So, they'd also have to compensate you for lost wages as well, because you'll most likely have to leave your job.

Loki
September 12th, 2004, 05:03 AM
In case anyone is interested, CKCO has an online poll about the ban.
http://www.ckco.ca/streettalk_answer.php

Writing4Fun
September 14th, 2004, 01:39 PM
Hi folks! As I've said, I received a form e-mail reply from Mr. Bryant. I've now replied to his reply. I listed several detailed questions about how the proposed breed ban will work. I also listed several alternate suggestions to an all-out breed ban. Let's see if I get another form e-mail in reply, or if he (or more realistically, his assistant) will actually reply to my point-form questions!

Luba
September 14th, 2004, 01:45 PM
As I posted on a different thread, his legislation is going to bring in more breeds. It will not just be PBT, this he's already stated himself.

LavenderRott
September 14th, 2004, 02:59 PM
His problem seems to be with all big dogs. Sounds like if he has his way, the province will be for little yappers only.

animallover
September 14th, 2004, 03:22 PM
I am sitting at work reading these threads and my coworkers are wondering why I am blubbering like a baby. lol. I would like to know why us humans at least get a trial for crimes that we are accussed off. These poor dogs are just going to be put to down just cause??? I have had the privlege of sharing my home with a pittie cross and he is (he is my daughters dog) still a wonderful loving dog. I also own a Rottie and he gets along with all animals and humans and would trust him with anybody. I would like to send a email to this Mike Bryant but I wouldn't know were to begin. I also would like to know if he is a dog owner. :rolleyes:

tyr
September 14th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Your frustration and concern is completely valid. I always feel the exact same way when I hear about these poor little darlings being murdered without the situation being looked into. Like why did they attack in the first place? Why is it that they only ever look at the one side and not the other? It is true that rapists and murderers get a better investigation then an animal. The problem with this situation is that humans, usually, plan their attacks....animals on the otherhand do not. Why can't these pets get a second chance? Order that they be muzzled and ensure that the situation never happens again. Then dig deeper...did the person instigate the attack? I realize that it is not fun being a victim of a "crazed" dog, but is killing them really necessary?

Luba
September 14th, 2004, 05:04 PM
the province will be for little yappers only.

Sandi you have given me a much needed laugh!!
BTW Sandi did you hear a Cambridge ON petstore is selling designer RottiX's
Wheaton Terrier/ Rottie x's? Nice combo huh! Well over 500bux a pup I hear.

Anyway, it has also come to my attention that the Ministry is NOT reading any of the material they are supplied with at this time.

So all of the long letters you write aren't being read. So you may as well put it on a sticky note or post card and send in that you are against BSL/banning breeds.

:mad:

Writing4Fun
September 14th, 2004, 05:14 PM
Well, he can send back another form e-mail, but I'll just keep hounding him for a personal reply. I have the time! :D

Wheaton Terrier/Rotti cross, huh? Sounds interesting... :rolleyes:

LavenderRott
September 14th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Your frustration and concern is completely valid. I always feel the exact same way when I hear about these poor little darlings being murdered without the situation being looked into. Like why did they attack in the first place? Why is it that they only ever look at the one side and not the other? It is true that rapists and murderers get a better investigation then an animal. The problem with this situation is that humans, usually, plan their attacks....animals on the otherhand do not. Why can't these pets get a second chance? Order that they be muzzled and ensure that the situation never happens again. Then dig deeper...did the person instigate the attack? I realize that it is not fun being a victim of a "crazed" dog, but is killing them really necessary?

Most dogs that attack people are not poor little darlings. They are powerful dogs that have usually had no training, no socialization, bad food and have been encourage to be as nasty as possible. Yes, putting them down is often the most responsible thing to do. Second chances are great, but I sure don't want my son to be the second victim.

Dogs are not people and should not be treated as such.

Having said that, people who own dogs that attack should be held responsible for what their dog has done. Period. And getting a misdemeanor ticket for letting their dog run loose is not being held accountable. If you dog bites someone then you should be looking at some jail time.

ohenry
September 15th, 2004, 04:17 PM
They are going to destroy our dogs because of thousands of idiots described in your email. I've wrote a letter to the governor (hopefully it will be read).
We have to do something to avert the killing. See the letter below.

Dear Sir:

I am not a breeder. My family just owes an American Pit Bull Terrier for 6 years. We raised him and this dog has become a part of our family, our life. He awards us with incredible amount of devotion and love. He also loves other people even those who hate him for just being a pit bull terrier. He can lick a stranger to "death". He has never tried to bite anyone never killed an animal. I know a number of other conscientious, decent pit bull owners. They have never had a precedent of biting.

The American Pit-bull Terrier is a normal dog, no different from most of the other breeds. Moreover, these dogs inherently love people unless they are kept by irresponsible and/or criminal elements. This breed is now widely abused. I can assure you with confidence that almost all of the pit bull related incidents are caused by the dogs belonging to either dark elements in our society or irresponsible owners and teenagers who never train the dog and use it to enhance their image.

Even if a child is raised in a violent, criminal atmosphere, there is a good chance he/she will develop certain characteristics of this environment.

The people who own dogs that attack should be held responsible for what their dog has done.

Please enforce the legislation to control these individuals, and do not destroy the breed. Getting a misdemeanor ticket for letting their dog run loose will not work.

Breed ban is the easiest and the least efficient way to avert dog bites. This ban is going to be a reaction to the mass hysteria caused by the media-created stereotype, a kind of a witch hunt that has already had place in our society (e.g. all Russians are communists, etc.). It is quite obvious what will happen as a result of this ban. The same bad individuals will go underground to continue abuse of the American pit bull terrier and/or use another strong breed to raise it aggressive, utilize for fighting or just create a macho image. These individuals will get a Rottweiler, German shepherd, Doberman Pinscher, etc. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to ban another breed?

The knife, even a kitchen knife or a scalpel, can kill. But we do not ban the knife; we are after the criminal element that uses it.
The media never puts into light the bites inflicted by other dogs (there are quite a few of them) because they do not attract so much interest.

Besides, there is a tendency to call "pit bull' many of the biting dogs even if they belong to other breeds. It is rather profitable to make pit bull a monster so you can fill headlines (as it has once happened to the German shepherd).

American Pit Bull terrier is an excellent breed that inherently loves people unless human spoils a dog.

The fact is that any dog, given irresponsible breeding and ownership and the wrong environment, might go bad.

chico2
September 15th, 2004, 04:52 PM
OHenry(hmmm choclate :D )
Very well written,I think this jerk Bryant though,has already made up his mind,seeing the"kitten eater"McGuinty and major Miller are completely on his side.
All likeminded responsible pit-owners have to somehow organize and cause a stink,together with other animal-lovers,or this law will pass,if it has not already.

ohenry
September 16th, 2004, 03:28 PM
The Ontario government pretends to listen to rational voices protecting the breed. But this deceitful government has probably made up their mind. The ban is going to be introduced before the end of the year, October the earliest.
Any idea how the pit bull and other reasonable pet owners can organize and protect the breed? How can we increase the public education to fight to stereotype?

Writing4Fun
September 16th, 2004, 03:33 PM
The only way you can stop a stereotype (and this goes for dogs as well as people) is if the breed being stereotyped stops acting that way!! Let's face it - as long as there are punks out there with Pitties on the end of a chain wearing studded leather collars, getting their dogs to chew the bejeesus out of tree limbs and park swings, the stereotype will live on. :( I know - it's not the dog's fault, but how do you stop these people? I sure as heck won't confront them about it!! :eek:

Mistruzzi
September 16th, 2004, 05:02 PM
The Dog Legislation Council of Canada is fighting this ban hard. If you want to go to www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org to give ideas or get ideas. We definately need to publicly protest or organize something to show Michael Bryant Ontarians aren't happy with this.

frustrating
September 27th, 2004, 01:32 AM
I will fight all the way to NEVER SEE A SINGLE ANIMAL hurt or seperated from it's owner unless it has a history of violence. That said, now I have to say this.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094743312244_90152512/?hub=Canada


And post these, wherever you live. Print them out and post them on cars, poles, community bulletin boards, in shopping malls, wherever flyers can be posted make sure they are seen.

BULLS**T - HUGE STEAMING CROCKS OF BULLS**T

Don't post them, don't spread this bull**** unless someone would like to come on here and show ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that the Attourney General suggested, said he would even consider tabling one bit of legislation that would effect ANY EXISTING DOG which has no history of aggression. I will eat my words in public if you can show him saying that. I listened to him talk for an hour about this on talk radio and he never suggested ANYTHING BUT a BREEDING and importing ban... which is very reasonable.

BSL will kill thousands of innocent dogs, "murder'

WHAT A PILE OF ****

Spread by BREEDERS and mentally unsound advocates [like windh] or people who have been told this will happen who never bothered to check the truth.

Do you think ontario wants to spend Billions of dollars in court LOSING the battle to put down innocent animals ?

Just do a GOOGLE SEARCH people, before the lies spread further


My opinion on the ban, for the record....

I have met wonderful pitbulls, a breeding ban or importating ban is still quite reasonable, the Attourney General's facts as presented on CFRB Toronto are that

1% or less of dogs are pitbulls
50% of fatalaties are from pitbulls or pitbull crosses.

So it doesn't matter whose retreiver or lab scarred who.

Don't say that its because of irresponsible breeding or owners, it doesn't matter because.

1. Which pitbulls are bred and not bred can not be legislated in anything but a fantasy world, and not enforced.
2. Which animal someone is allowed to own or not can not be legislated unless the licensing approach is taken, licenseing is a municipal function and can not be provincially legislated unless the dogs are declared a weapon.








This DON'T KILL PITBULLS CAMPAIGN IS BULL****


and I would eat my words if I were wrong.

thiswilleventuallysendspamtofrustrating@f__kedup.c a (works if you replace the __ with the uc)

LavenderRott
September 27th, 2004, 07:54 AM
Wow. You really bought into all of that media crap in a big way, didn't you. Too bad you haven't done any of your own research. You would find that the attorney generals numbers are completely wrong.

First off, neither the U.S. or Canada has a comprehensive method of collecting dog bite statistics. Any reported bites are reported voluntarily and dogs are often identified by the biter, who has no clue as to what a "pit bull" is.

There is no way to know, accurately, how many pit bulls there are. A pit bull is a generic dog, not a specific breed. There is an American Pit Bull Terrier that is registerable in the U.S. but I am not sure if it is registerable in Canada. When "pit bulls" are banned, the ban usually covers a couple of specific breeds and mixes thereof. Since irresponsible owners don't bother to vet their dogs, you can bet they don't bother to get city or province tags for them, so again, there is no way to know how many there are.

A couple of weeks ago, pit bulls made the front pages of Canadian papers 3 times. That same week a child was attacked by a Chesapeake Bay Retreiver and required many stitches to his/her face. This story was buried by the press as it involved a "family friendly" dog.

This summer a court in Denver found that the animal control officers and vets responsible for identifing "pit bulls" in the city and euthanizing them were unable do identify the dog consistantly and accurately. Last week, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio found that dog bans are unconstitutional.

Italy tried to ban "viscious" dogs starting with "pit bulls". Their ban list now includes 92 breeds of dogs including collies, corgis and Boston terriers.

People who own pit bulls that bite own them because of that reputation. To think that banning the dogs will solve the bite problem is niave. These people will just move to a different breed of dog, breed bad tempered dogs and get more of the same.

Be careful. The next breed on the list may be yours. And if things keep going the way they are, that may happen sooner then you think.

Oh, and by the way, the numbers out of Kitchner that support the pit bull ban are wrong. Kitchner stopped tracking dog bites when the ban passed. Now the only question about the dog that bit is - Does it have rabies. The breed of the dog doing the biting isn't asked any longer.

frustrating
September 27th, 2004, 07:16 PM
Too bad you haven't done any of your own research. You would find that the attorney generals numbers are completely wrong

Of course you just proved my point, you did zero research and trusted the reasearch of the anti-bsl people who are spoon feeding you ****. SO I DID THE RESEARCH FOR YOU (before I wrote anything) Read it or stop talking.

It doesn't of course change the essential fact of the LIES that the Attourney General is going to kill dogs, You total ignored that and instead continue to go on and on about how wonderful pits are ? (and once again, I have known wondeful pits)

You seem to be arguing
1. There are no statistics on dog bites ?
2. That pit bulls are NOT more likely to bite ?
3. Because dog bite reporting is voluntary there are no real statistics ? Since I/he gave a statistic on fatatlities and not bites (I see you didn't really read it) your argument suggest that people have failed to report dog related fatalities, probably happens every day in your world ?
4. And of course because reporting a dog bite is voluntary, I'm sure lots of people have serious dog bites just sew them up themseleves at home

And I never used the numbers out of kitchner, and aside from the stats the fatalities are all around you, both dogs and humans.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf (breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks) by the way, this particular document will tell you that rotweillers cause more fatalities. They are an exceptionally more populous breed.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog3.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog4.pdf
http://aepo-xdv-http://www.epo.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0047723/m0047723.asp#Table_1
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm

And lastly of course, the "italian dog ban", I would love to see a document support the "National Dog ban on collies"

Wow do, you ever prove my point.. you buy ALL the **** you are fed.

Google search for italian dog ban
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22italian+dog+ban%22)
Google search for italy dog ban
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22italy+dog+ban%22
Google search for italy bans dogs
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22italy+bans+dogs%22
Google search for italy "dog ban"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=italy+%22dog+ban%22

Which turns up the village(s) that have actually banned dogs... and nothing regading ANY NATIONAL BAN

Once again, you bought the bull**** you were fed.

If you want an example of dog bans gone wrong... check out GERMANY, they may end up with an EU wide ban on Staffordshires because of it (http://www.petplanet.co.uk/petplanet/news/newsbody.asp?article_id=38)


Or for that matter, actually check stuff out before spewing it on ye old interweb. Which was my whole point.





Wow. You really bought into all of that media crap in a big way, didn't you. Too bad you haven't done any of your own research. You would find that the attorney generals numbers are completely wrong.

First off, neither the U.S. or Canada has a comprehensive method of collecting dog bite statistics. Any reported bites are reported voluntarily and dogs are often identified by the biter, who has no clue as to what a "pit bull" is.

There is no way to know, accurately, how many pit bulls there are. A pit bull is a generic dog, not a specific breed. There is an American Pit Bull Terrier that is registerable in the U.S. but I am not sure if it is registerable in Canada. When "pit bulls" are banned, the ban usually covers a couple of specific breeds and mixes thereof. Since irresponsible owners don't bother to vet their dogs, you can bet they don't bother to get city or province tags for them, so again, there is no way to know how many there are.

A couple of weeks ago, pit bulls made the front pages of Canadian papers 3 times. That same week a child was attacked by a Chesapeake Bay Retreiver and required many stitches to his/her face. This story was buried by the press as it involved a "family friendly" dog.

This summer a court in Denver found that the animal control officers and vets responsible for identifing "pit bulls" in the city and euthanizing them were unable do identify the dog consistantly and accurately. Last week, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio found that dog bans are unconstitutional.

Italy tried to ban "viscious" dogs starting with "pit bulls". Their ban list now includes 92 breeds of dogs including collies, corgis and Boston terriers.

People who own pit bulls that bite own them because of that reputation. To think that banning the dogs will solve the bite problem is niave. These people will just move to a different breed of dog, breed bad tempered dogs and get more of the same.

Be careful. The next breed on the list may be yours. And if things keep going the way they are, that may happen sooner then you think.

Oh, and by the way, the numbers out of Kitchner that support the pit bull ban are wrong. Kitchner stopped tracking dog bites when the ban passed. Now the only question about the dog that bit is - Does it have rabies. The breed of the dog doing the biting isn't asked any longer.

Writing4Fun
September 27th, 2004, 08:33 PM
Actually, frustrating, I just searched google for "italy dangerous breed" and came up with a plethora of supporting reports from newspapers from around the world.

Italy's law indicates that children, delinquents and criminals who have caused harm to people or animals are banned outright from owning any of the "dangerous" breeds on their list. Otherwise, you're allowed to own one of these breeds, as long as you keep it muzzled and leashed in public, and take out private, third party insurance to cover it.

pitbulliest
September 27th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Does anyone know of any groups or organization that intends to fight this ban? I am outraged by the ignorance of many people, including this Ontario politician who is clearly using the pitbull issue as a way to gain popularity. I am also annoyed at the many ignorant people who are supporting his cause. Since this pitbull issue has resurfaced a couple of days ago, I have gotten many strange looks from people in my neighborhood, as well as a few remarks of how my dog "kills people." My dog would neevr hurt a fly! He is great with people, especially kids..and is the biggest baby! In fact, from my daily walks with him, I notice that it is usually the smaller dogs, like Jack Russel Terriers or Chihuahuas that are more hyper and problematic. Please...if anyone knows of any advocacy groups that would fight this, please let me know!

Sorry..I guess I'm a bit late on this post..but yes there are quite a few groups that are fighting this ban..including ourselves of course! I actually just joined the yahoo group that is fighting BSL all around the province whenever it pops up...here's a link if you'd like to read some of the bulletin board topics that are popping up over there:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DLCCOntario/

I also know that there are actually many forums that are taking an interest in this ban and handing out flyers or putting up posters..writing letter to Bryant...signing petitions..etc..every single person really counts and can make a difference. I visit this forum often, and the topic of the ban has been ongoing there as well:
http://www.pitbullforum.com

I'm sure that there are more organizations that are trying to fight the BSL...you can probably call the Toronto Humane Society and see what they have to say about it, and whether or not they know if there are any other organizations which are trying to influence Bryant to change his mind.

Don't worry you guys..I know we can win this as long as we stick together :) Numbers count! And we all know its the irresponsible owners and breeders that need to be punished, not the dogs. Education for the general public about our dogs, and stronger fines/penalties for the morons that can't take care of their animals properly is what needs to happen here!

My message to FRUSTRATING:
You need to calm down. Your aggressive responses will only cause people to ignore every ignorant word you're spewing out. Why are you so darn angry? Relax and make your point calmly....

First of all, I'd like everyone to know that statistics regarding dog bites and identification are purely innacurate, and if anyone is to believe these statistics, right off the bat, you are being naive. Dogs which are identified as pit bulls are most of the time a completely unrelated breed. Moreso, dog bites are recorded based on the severity of the bite. Let's face it, when you're bitten by a Chihuahua, its likely to be less severe then when receiving a bite from a Doberman or a Pit Bull Terrier. Not to mention, small dog bites are rarely reported, and this further damages any potential accuracy in statistics (which doesn't exist anyways!).

Here's a link to a website that talks about these kinds of statistics:
http://s96980453.onlinehome.us/statistics.htm
Better yet, here's a great book that goes into detail on the entire subject from top to bottom...I suggest this to anyone that's a statistics freak :P
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/purchase.html

Loki
September 27th, 2004, 08:49 PM
I'm not as informed as either party in this, but I'd like to point out a couple things.

The editorial Note in mm461 (MMWR - posted by frustraring) says that to determine breed specific mortality rates, A COMPLETE ascertainment of deaths and an ACCURATE determination of the Breed( I haven't read everything posted yet, but I have seen no proof of either regarding this document) and RELIABLE breed populations ( which the document itsellf ADMITS is unavaiable) are necessary. The Document states that it's accuracy is limited by this fact.
Personally, this document proves that available statistics are flawed.

I will continue to read these documents, but so far, reading them is making me MORE positive that BSL can't work.

About Italy, I believe that the ban was tabled, but scrapped after the fiasco that BSL proved to be in Germany. Italy decided that BSL was useless.

Try a Google search for 'Breed Specific Legislation in Italy',
You will definitely find the topic.

Loki
September 27th, 2004, 09:34 PM
Posted by Frustrating:
"
4. And of course because reporting a dog bite is voluntary, I'm sure lots of people have serious dog bites just sew them up themseleves at home
"


FROM Same document( Editorial Note): In 1994, an estimated 4.7 Million persons( 1.8% of US population) sustained a dog bite; of these approximately 800,000( .3%) sought medical care for the bite.

Frustrating, you are just proving that Lavender really knows what she is talking about.

LL1
September 27th, 2004, 09:45 PM
Nice filthy mouth "frustrating" or should I say Sue H of Emo's Oasis???

Any reason why you are singling out a woman who has devoted years of her life to saving Pitbulls? Wait a minute - didn't she "out" you as a breeder/dog fighter? Is that why you aren't on petfinder anymore? Ever get your grandkids back? How about your dogs seized many times by the SPCA? How are you doing Sue???

If you learned how to spell, and knowing you as well I do, learned how to bathe and care for your animals and kids and grand kids, you would be so much better off!!
Spread by BREEDERS and mentally unsound advocates [like windh] or people who have been told this will happen who never bothered to check the truth.

Spurby
September 27th, 2004, 10:16 PM
Nice filthy mouth "frustrating" or should I say Sue H of Emo's Oasis???

Any reason why you are singling out a woman who has devoted years of her life to saving Pitbulls? Wait a minute - didn't she "out" you as a breeder/dog fighter? Is that why you aren't on petfinder anymore? Ever get your grandkids back? How about your dogs seized many times by the SPCA? How are you doing Sue???

If you learned how to spell, and knowing you as well I do, learned how to bathe and care for your animals and kids and grand kids, you would be so much better off!!

Warning- she steals garden gomes as well!!LOL what a loser

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 01:16 AM
I'm not as informed as either party in this, but I'd like to point out a couple things.

The editorial Note in mm461 (MMWR - posted by frustraring) says that to determine breed specific mortality rates, A COMPLETE ascertainment of deaths and an ACCURATE determination of the Breed( I haven't read everything posted yet, but I have seen no proof of either regarding this document) and RELIABLE breed populations ( which the document itsellf ADMITS is unavaiable) are necessary. The Document states that it's accuracy is limited by this fact.
Personally, this document proves that available statistics are flawed.

I will continue to read these documents, but so far, reading them is making me MORE positive that BSL can't work.

About Italy, I believe that the ban was tabled, but scrapped after the fiasco that BSL proved to be in Germany. Italy decided that BSL was useless.

Try a Google search for 'Breed Specific Legislation in Italy',
You will definitely find the topic.

Again, there is a lot of reason for EXTENSIVE debate before BSL... I was only bothered by the misinformation campaign.
"The Attourney General is going to murder thousands of dogs ?"

"Italy Has banned 92 breeds"

I could be convinced a breeding ban is useless... but I couldn't stand to see this campaign of bs.

At least you read something before you spoke.

Thanks

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 01:21 AM
Nice filthy mouth "frustrating" or should I say Sue H of Emo's Oasis???

"Who the Heck is Sue H ?" I can't be bothered to spell after midnight, I apologize in advance.

Why is it that everyone has a problem with what I said never focuses on the actual issue ? I am a guy with 2 dogs and 3 cats who raises money for andf provides service for non speciesist rescue and cat rescues.

I apologize for my filth, but this thread continues ON and ON and ON without anyone saying, "Hey that poster they want us to spread is lying to incite people", or "Italy didn't ban 92 breeds of dog"

and who did I single out ? I singled out no-one, only LIES I like to single out lies... there are enough in the world.


Any reason why you are singling out a woman who has devoted years of her life to saving Pitbulls? Wait a minute - didn't she "out" you as a breeder/dog fighter? Is that why you aren't on petfinder anymore? Ever get your grandkids back? How about your dogs seized many times by the SPCA? How are you doing Sue???

If you learned how to spell, and knowing you as well I do, learned how to bathe and care for your animals and kids and grand kids, you would be so much better off!!

Spurby
September 28th, 2004, 01:29 AM
I know exactly who you are now frustrating..and yes, you DID single someone out [Windh] and yeah, you can't spell because the web-site you had up previously about this issue showed that several times. Talk about spreading lies and half truths, you would know all about that wouldn't you??? go crawl back under the rock you came from.

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 01:31 AM
Actually, frustrating, I just searched google for "italy dangerous breed" and came up with a plethora of supporting reports from newspapers from around the world.

Italy's law indicates that children, delinquents and criminals who have caused harm to people or animals are banned outright from owning any of the "dangerous" breeds on their list. Otherwise, you're allowed to own one of these breeds, as long as you keep it muzzled and leashed in public, and take out private, third party insurance to cover it.


My problem with lavendar rott was with 2 statements.

1. Italy tried to ban "viscious" dogs starting with "pit bulls". Their ban list now includes 92 breeds of dogs including collies, corgis and Boston terriers.

Trying to indicate that this ban was either in effect or even in danger of being in effect (if you translate the search results from an italian search engine) or read beyond the first ten google results... you'll find that the ban was a political manouver with little possibility for success.

http://www.abcitaly.it/

(use this to translate http://world.altavista.com/tr)

2. No one keeps statistics on Fatal dog attacks ? (in response to the stats I posted)

Which they do, and it shows in the U.S. (according to the CDC) that numerically rottwielers kill more people, it also shows that only pits and rotts are significant in causing deaths.

Thank you for the more usefule search of "italy dangerous breed"... lots more info there.

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 01:35 AM
I know exactly who you are now frustrating..and yes, you DID single someone out [Windh] and yeah, you can't spell because the web-site you had up previously about this issue showed that several times. Talk about spreading lies and half truths, you would know all about that wouldn't you??? go crawl back under the rock you came from.


Cool...

I didn't single this person out in any way that meant anything to anyone but people IRL who know the real name. I feel sad for that person... she actually believes herself. I hope she someday gets better.

But I said who I am, see I'm not hiding who I am.. .I said I'm not Sue whoever.

If you know who I am, My email address is public and organizational knowledge and I'll stand by anything I say.

You see, I'm always open to new information.

And I don't lie.

Oh and in case anyone else thinks I'm someone out there, I basically have no internet identy or existance, and don't usually participate in forums and never in chats... so if you've mistaken me for someone who said something somwehere sometime. You're wrong.

Spurby
September 28th, 2004, 01:59 AM
Cool...

I didn't single this person out in any way that meant anything to anyone but people IRL who know the real name. I feel sad for that person... she actually believes herself. I hope she someday gets better.

But I said who I am, see I'm not hiding who I am.. .I said I'm not Sue whoever.

If you know who I am, My email address is public and organizational knowledge and I'll stand by anything I say.

You see, I'm always open to new information.

And I don't lie.

Oh and in case anyone else thinks I'm someone out there, I basically have no internet identy or existance, and don't usually participate in forums and never in chats... so if you've mistaken me for someone who said something somwehere sometime. You're wrong.

Ah, but Frustrated in bed, you are someone out there, i feel for all those you must deal with you on a daily basis :( Get a life, K? Let the people who actually know what they are doing regarding dogs and BSL do their job, and do try to be a more responsible knowledgeable dog owner first before spewing you garbage around, looks really dumb on your part. Try reading AND understanding what was written, that will go a long way!!

(*sorry for any bad spelling or grammer, it's late for me too!)

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 08:20 AM
Ah, but Frustrated in bed, you are someone out there, i feel for all those you must deal with you on a daily basis :( Get a life, K? Let the people who actually know what they are doing regarding dogs and BSL do their job, and do try to be a more responsible knowledgeable dog owner first before spewing you garbage around, looks really dumb on your part. Try reading AND understanding what was written, that will go a long way!!

(*sorry for any bad spelling or grammer, it's late for me too!)


"who actually know what they are doing regarding dogs and BSL do their job,"

Some people here actually speak articulately, but others like you ignore the issue and make wasteful personal attacks.


You've never said to me "Frustrating, you're an idiot... but the poster did lie", instead "i feel sorry for the blah blah blah, or you're Sue H. of whatever the heck"

Gee you're smart.

Ignoring the topic suggest you're still living that lie. No one is going to kill innocent dogs... it's too stupid even for thsi governement and legally nearly impossible.

So instead of telling me whats wrong with me and ignoring the issue, which is all anyone but LOKI has done... talk about the disinformation problem.

LL1
September 28th, 2004, 09:25 AM
Is her man still in jail Spurby? Wow - that's been a long time.
Ah, but Frustrated in bed,

LL1
September 28th, 2004, 09:28 AM
Learn how to spell it properly, and the only experience you could possibly have with the Attorney General would be seeing his staff in a courtroom.

The Attourney General

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 10:15 AM
Is her man still in jail Spurby? Wow - that's been a long time.

Wow, learn to read.. I said who I am.



Learn how to spell it properly, and the only experience you could possibly have with the Attorney General would be seeing his staff in a courtroom.


So the intellectual debate continues ? I see you're not afraid to debate the issues at all ? It's so perceptive of you to recognize all the criminal actions I have eluded to here in this forum and all the criminal behavior I have exhibited. You are so pereceptive you should work for the FBI or CSIS or something.

I have to go spend time in the courtroom now defending myself... I've been arrested again... you know... third time this week and all.

Oh wait, the police are here again ? They say that LL1 pointed me out to them as a dastardly criminal and thats good enough for them. Wouldn't want people going around asking LL1 to engage someone on the actual issue.. no sireee.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.

Enjoy your Anonymity.

LL1
September 28th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Funny - I don't see your name or email address anywhere. And email addresses are real easy to create anonymously BTW.
Cool...


But I said who I am, see I'm not hiding who I am.. .I said I'm not Sue whoever.

If you know who I am, My email address is public and organizational knowledge and I'll stand by anything I say.

LavenderRott
September 28th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Sorry, hun, I do my own research and certainly don't post unless I can back up my facts.

Going back and reading the posts, you discussed the Attorney General - Mr. Bryant and his facts. He is getting his numbers from Kitchner and other cities with bans in place. He has surrounded himself with ban proponants and not experts in the fields of animal behavior.

Fatal dog attack statistics. You want them, you will have them. These are the American statistics because, well, quite frankly, my source on this set of statistics is the best source out there. It is well researched, easy to read, and right at my fingertips. And it is not anti-bsl propaganda, just the facts.

The study was done on dog fatalities from 1965 to 2001. I will give you the breed and the number of fatalities attributed to that breed.

Airedale - 1
Akita - 6
American Staffordshire Terrier - 2
Australian Shepherd - 1
Basenji - 1
Boxer - 4
Briard - 1
Brittany Spaniel - 1
Bulldog - 2
Chesapeake Bay Retriever - 1
Chow - 13
Coonhound - 2
Dachshund -3
Doberman - 13
German Shepherd - 40
Golden Retriever - 4
Great Dane - 15
Hunting dog - 1
Husky type - 17
Irish Setter - 1
Labrador Retriever - 4
Malalmute - 17
Mastiff (bull) - 5
Newfoundland - 1
Old English Sheepdog - 1
Pit bull type dog - 90
Pomeranian mix - 1
Presa Canario mix - 1
Rodesian Ridgeback - 1
Rottweiler - 54
Samoyed - 1
Siberian Husky - 21
St. Bernard - 15
West Highland - 1
Wolf dog - 23
Mixed breed - 71

Yes, there are 54 deaths attributed to rottweilers. In those same years, there were 1,109,173 rottweilers registered with AKC. Now, my good calculater is at work, but it seems to me that 54 out of over a million are pretty small odds. German shepherds, 40 out of 2,741,822. Again, pretty small odds. AKC doesn't have the numbers for the pit bulls since it is a pretty generic term covering 3 or 4 different breeds (depending on who you talk to) and mixes there of.

How does the Center for Disease Control collect it's dog bite data? Well, I will explain it as it is posted on it's website. The number are collected from participating emergency rooms across the U.S. These numbers include age of victim, type of damage. Periodically, someone does a random phone survey of the reports that it has in their computer. They talk to the victim, or the parent/guardian of the victim (in the case of a minor) to determine the breed of dog that did the biting. Do I know for a fact that not all dog bites are reported? Yes. I was bitten a couple of years ago by a dog in my home who had his foot stuck in my car door. Did I report the bite? No. Why would I, the dog was obviously in serious pain.

Kitchner has reported that since the pit bull ban there have only been two bites by pit bulls in that city. What they don't tell you is that the total number of dog bites has not decreased.

As for Italy. You are right. I misspoke. There are 92 breeds of dogs on it's restricted list, not banned.

Just out of curiosity, where did Mr. Bryant get his numbers on the percentage of dogs that are pit bulls? Since "pit bull" often includes American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers and American Bull Dogs, I find it hard to believe that he knows what percentage of dogs in Canada belong to these breeds. If memory serves, only one of the breeds is registerable by the Canadian Kennel Club (maybe two). Since the general public can often not discern the difference between a purebred dog and a mix, thereof, I doubt that these numbers are accurate.

1% or less of dogs are pitbulls

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 11:05 AM
Sorry, hun, I do my own research and certainly don't post unless I can back up my facts.

Going back and reading the posts, you discussed the Attorney General - Mr. Bryant and his facts. He is getting his numbers from Kitchner and other cities with bans in place. He has surrounded himself with ban proponants and not experts in the fields of animal behavior.

Fatal dog attack statistics. You want them, you will have them. These are the American statistics because, well, quite frankly, my source on this set of statistics is the best source out there. It is well researched, easy to read, and right at my fingertips. And it is not anti-bsl propaganda, just the facts.

The study was done on dog fatalities from 1965 to 2001. I will give you the breed and the number of fatalities attributed to that breed.

Airedale - 1
Akita - 6
American Staffordshire Terrier - 2
Australian Shepherd - 1
Basenji - 1
Boxer - 4
Briard - 1
Brittany Spaniel - 1
Bulldog - 2
Chesapeake Bay Retriever - 1
Chow - 13
Coonhound - 2
Dachshund -3
Doberman - 13
German Shepherd - 40
Golden Retriever - 4
Great Dane - 15
Hunting dog - 1
Husky type - 17
Irish Setter - 1
Labrador Retriever - 4
Malalmute - 17
Mastiff (bull) - 5
Newfoundland - 1
Old English Sheepdog - 1
Pit bull type dog - 90
Pomeranian mix - 1
Presa Canario mix - 1
Rodesian Ridgeback - 1
Rottweiler - 54
Samoyed - 1
Siberian Husky - 21
St. Bernard - 15
West Highland - 1
Wolf dog - 23
Mixed breed - 71

Yes, there are 54 deaths attributed to rottweilers. In those same years, there were 1,109,173 rottweilers registered with AKC. Now, my good calculater is at work, but it seems to me that 54 out of over a million are pretty small odds. German shepherds, 40 out of 2,741,822. Again, pretty small odds. AKC doesn't have the numbers for the pit bulls since it is a pretty generic term covering 3 or 4 different breeds (depending on who you talk to) and mixes there of.

How many pitbuls are there, are these stats on line ? That would be great.

You had made the point that there was no real data. And when I mentioned rotts I myself I beleive described them as incredibly more numerous than pits.


How does the Center for Disease Control collect it's dog bite data? Well, I will explain it as it is posted on it's website. The number are collected from participating emergency rooms across the U.S. These numbers include age of victim, type of damage. Periodically, someone does a random phone survey of the reports that it has in their computer. They talk to the victim, or the parent/guardian of the victim (in the case of a minor) to determine the breed of dog that did the biting. Do I know for a fact that not all dog bites are reported? Yes. I was bitten a couple of years ago by a dog in my home who had his foot stuck in my car door. Did I report the bite? No. Why would I, the dog was obviously in serious pain.


Of course, this bite you didn't report is also irrelevent to breed discussion.

You're missing what I said, please re-read my statement.. I said "are you trying to tell me that there are un-reported fatal dog attacks" (3. Because dog bite reporting is voluntary there are no real statistics ? Since I/he gave a statistic on fatatlities and not bites (I see you didn't quite read it) your argument suggest that people have failed to report dog related fatalities, probably happens every day in your world ?) thats what i was saying, since the attourney generals statistics were on fatalities. On top of that, I doubt there are many cases of "breed undetermined" or "it looked like a pitbull in a fatal dog attack, as law enforcement seems to do a better job and put more effort into finding an aggressive dog than they do murderes.


And in the case of fatal dog bites,
Kitchner has reported that since the pit bull ban there have only been two bites by pit bulls in that city. What they don't tell you is that the total number of dog bites has not decreased.

As for Italy. You are right. I misspoke. There are 92 breeds of dogs on it's restricted list, not banned.

Just out of curiosity, where did Mr. Bryant get his numbers on the percentage of dogs that are pit bulls? Since "pit bull" often includes American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers and American Bull Dogs, I find it hard to believe that he knows what percentage of dogs in Canada belong to these breeds. If memory serves, only one of the breeds is registerable by the Canadian Kennel Club (maybe two). Since the general public can often not discern the difference between a purebred dog and a mix, thereof, I doubt that these numbers are accurate.


I have emailed him and asked him for their statisitcs and sources, in the guise of someone who might do an article... because they are overloaded in email and I wanted to see if I could stand out, a staff member has promised to forward the information this week.


Thanks for taking the time to talk instead of slander or make guesses at who I am (after I already said it :) I am sorry if my response to your original reply was discourteous, I can see now that you just wrote it on the quick.. and actually are putting thought into the discussion.

What do you think of the "picture poster" that originally incited me to post here ? (about Michael Bryant mudering dogs)

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 11:15 AM
Here are some more loose stats of interest. Canadian.

http://www.dogexpert.com/Miscellaneous/Canada-DutchStata.pdf

Spurby
September 28th, 2004, 11:24 AM
Oh Please Chris, i know who you are!! a pathetic boy who has nothing better to do but be for BSL because someone you hate happens to be against it, can't you find anything useful and meaningfull in your life anymore?? Get over it!

I choose not to sit here and debate this with you for the very valid reason you have nothing useful to add, just googled links, and your own totally uninformed views. Basically, your not worth my time, you have other intentions, real nice, have you considered the dogs that would be suffering? Nah, hate is just to powerful isn't it? I am glad i do not live in the hate filled world you do, real sad exsistance it must be for you.

jelena
September 28th, 2004, 11:47 AM
wanna help out pit bulls :)
every single person counts, please sign it
http://www.petitiononline.com/12512pit/petition.html
lets have these little guys deserve the love they need!

sammiec
September 28th, 2004, 12:16 PM
Thank you, thank you for turning this into another meaningless thread that is probably soon to be locked. This thread was initially meant just for helping the breed, now it's just a childish insulting battle of "witts".

It has been mentioned many times that children do frequent this board, and the swearing and name calling are not needed. To tell you the truth I only skimmed over your posts. I found that trying to read the rambling statements and forever stats mixed with some name calling and swearing quite boring. That's obvioulsy not the way to get your point across, it certainly didn't work here...

The A.G. IS talking about a breed ban, the innocent pit bulls sitting in the shelters and are turned over because people don't want to deal with the stares, yelling, and discrimination that we are now faced with daily; these animals - which are innocent WILL die!! They will not find homes, they will never be loved, they will die alone! That's what we're talking about.
I think many realize that they will not come into our homes and take our pets, but they will enforce a muzzle by law and I bet you they will kill pit bulls that are turned into the shelter - pets that may have escaped their owners and are lost and freightened.

I don't think that my dog hould be forced to wear a muzzle when she leaves private property because of some irresponsible idiot, that doesn't care about their dog. That's not her fault, nor mine. That's the reality us pit bull owners face. That's what we're hoping to stop, and protect our pets.

But thanks again for ruining this thread, thanks for helping our cause.

LavenderRott
September 28th, 2004, 12:27 PM
No, there are no unreported dog bite related fatalities that I know of. Mr. Bryant has and will use any "statistics" that he finds that he feels are relevent to support his cause. And quite honestly, the statistics are not worth much the way they stand. There is a big difference between a dog that bites for no reason and a dog that bites because, let's say, a child jammed a pen in the dogs ear. If statistics were more complete, then even my unreported bite would be relevent. As it should be, to be honest.

Because of the generic term "pit bull" I really don't think you will be able to find any accurate numbers as far as how many there are.

As far as law enforcement being able to find aggressive dogs, yes, they do. But identifing them is another story altogether. This was proven in court in Denver, Colorado earlier this summer. Animal Control officers and veterinarians responsible for identifying "pit bulls" and enforcing that city's ban were unable to do so with any degree of consistancy or accuracy.

As far as dogs dieing, yes it is going to happen. Already some shelters in Canada are not releasing pit bulls for adoption or to rescue groups that can take them out of the area. Since these dogs are taking up much needed space, they will be put down. As will any strays that are picked up after the ban goes into place. No, you say. Well, think about it for a minute. The laws that were put in place in Windsor last night says that all existing pit bull in the city must be registered, microchipped and insured by October 31. Responsible owners will have this done. Responsible owners are not the problem. It is irresponsible owners that are the problem, and those same people will not follow the new laws any better then the old ones. Worst case scenario, they will just turn their untrained, unsocialized, unvetted dogs loose for someone else to deal with and get a different large breed dog.

I am willing to bet that "pit bull" bites will dramatically decrease in Windsor, while rottweiler bites will increase. As a responsible rottweiler owner, this scares me. I have spent lots of time and money making sure that my dog is well socialized, vetted and trained. I don't have money for expensive liability insurance for a 10 year old dog that has proven she is not a bite risk. If something like this was put into place where I live, what would my options be? Get rid of my dog? Why should I have to?

And Spurby, I don't know who you are either, but if you have nothing to contribute to this discussion on BSL, would you please stop posting in this thread.

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 12:27 PM
Oh Please Chris, i know who you are!! a pathetic boy who has nothing better to do but be for BSL because someone you hate happens to be against it, can't you find anything useful and meaningfull in your life anymore?? Get over it!

I choose not to sit here and debate this with you for the very valid reason you have nothing useful to add, just googled links, and your own totally uninformed views. Basically, your not worth my time, you have other intentions, real nice, have you considered the dogs that would be suffering? Nah, hate is just to powerful isn't it? I am glad i do not live in the hate filled world you do, real sad exsistance it must be for you.

What dogs would be suffering, oops again a random baseless claim ?


Well enjoy your anominty,

Hide away, imagine the various people you seem to think I might be.

You still haven't addreseed the lies.

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 12:35 PM
No, there are no unreported dog bite related fatalities that I know of. Mr. Bryant has and will use any "statistics" that he finds that he feels are relevent to support his cause. And quite honestly, the statistics are not worth much the way they stand. There is a big difference between a dog that bites for no reason and a dog that bites because, let's say, a child jammed a pen in the dogs ear. If statistics were more complete, then even my unreported bite would be relevent. As it should be, to be honest.

Because of the generic term "pit bull" I really don't think you will be able to find any accurate numbers as far as how many there are.

As far as law enforcement being able to find aggressive dogs, yes, they do. But identifing them is another story altogether. This was proven in court in Denver, Colorado earlier this summer. Animal Control officers and veterinarians responsible for identifying "pit bulls" and enforcing that city's ban were unable to do so with any degree of consistancy or accuracy.


Totally, and breed ban or licensing etc... I don't see a viable solution to that problem. Kitchener uses a panel of "experts" but it's still pretty subjective.


As far as dogs dieing, yes it is going to happen. Already some shelters in Canada are not releasing pit bulls for adoption or to rescue groups that can take them out of the area. Since these dogs are taking up much needed space, they will be put down. As will any strays that are picked up after the ban goes into place. No, you say. Well, think about it for a minute. The laws that were put in place in Windsor last night says that all existing pit bull in the city must be registered, microchipped and insured by October 31. Responsible owners will have this done. Responsible owners are not the problem. It is irresponsible owners that are the problem, and those same people will not follow the new laws any better then the old ones. Worst case scenario, they will just turn their untrained, unsocialized, unvetted dogs loose for someone else to deal with and get a different large breed dog.


Shelters have to allocate space based on 1. temperment and 2. adoptability, I don't know what the adoptability of a pit bull is... we have regular contact with 2. local humane societies and they both contain good natured pits from time to time.



I am willing to bet that "pit bull" bites will dramatically decrease in Windsor, while rottweiler bites will increase. As a responsible rottweiler owner, this scares me. I have spent lots of time and money making sure that my dog is well socialized, vetted and trained. I don't have money for expensive liability insurance for a 10 year old dog that has proven she is not a bite risk. If something like this was put into place where I live, what would my options be? Get rid of my dog? Why should I have to?


And this i the crux, nobody should get rid of their dog if it has no negative history... I would hope that insurance companies are going to consider risk factors in rates... but it may be that they are unwilling to insure and will just make the rate unachievable. Grandfathering is the only approach if they want to pull something like this.



Bryant unfortunately has a political problem to solve aside from a public health one. What are the solutions that are feasible for him ?

1. A breeding importing ban.
2. Owner regulation / licensing

Do you think the windsor model has any value ?

Do you know of any others, and what would you like to see happen. I mean if he were to not just drop the whole thing.

LavenderRott
September 28th, 2004, 01:04 PM
Detroit, Michigan has a pit bull ban and I know that every pit bull that is taken into the Detroit Humane Society it pts with no temperment tests or anything else. How do I know? Watch "Animal Cops-Detroit" on Animal Planet sometime.

Quite frankly, the only thing that will reduce the number of attacks is to hold the owners of dogs accountable. I am sure that Windsor (and just about every other city out there) has some type of leash law. Enforce it and make the fines hurt. If your dog attacks another dog or a person, then you should have to appear before a judge. All the relevant information should be looked at and a judgement made on whether or not the dog is dangerous and the owner should be fined accordingly. Having said this, let me explain a bit further. If you are the type of owner who doesn't vet, train or socialize your dog and it jumps a fence and kills the neighbors cat, then you need to pay a HEFTY fine and not be allowed to own another dog. If you do vet, train, and socialize your dog, but leave it out in your fenced back yard for an hour after work unattended, well this may be a slightly different story. What if, for that hour, there is some little juvenile delinquent that takes great pleasure in teasing your dog? What if this teasing goes on for months while you are in the house, cooking dinner, helping your kids with homework whatever? What if that dog finally has enough and goes over your fence? Does that make the dog dangerous? Not necessarily.

Does that make sense?

Do I think that the Windsor model has any value? I am not sure what you are asking? Do I think that Windsor made the right decision on how to address the problem of dog bites. NO. I do think that someone in Windsor needs to figure out the best way to track dog bite information between now and the end of October so that when the next city wants to implement a breed ban and wants to use the "success" of Windsor, they have accurate and complete numbers.

Akeeter
September 28th, 2004, 01:13 PM
These breed bans are too recent to produce any real results. The only stats that will change over the next 10+ years are those that directly relate to Pit Bulls. (There will be less Pit Bull's on record for everything -Good & Bad.) If Kit. Wat, London etc. want to look like they did the right thing, it will be in their interests to not keep or publish any bite stats, except those that make them look Good. (Ie "There are less PB bites." But what if the general dog bite stats don't change, as has been the case in the U.S. where some BSL has been in place from the 1980's)

If the Att. Gen's intentions are so pure as to not destroy any existing dogs, why did Toronto Animal Services pull all their Pit Bulls out of the adoption room? (They must have gotten a heads up from Somebody about Something, or they wouldn't have done it.) The Mayor of Toronto's Office? Maybe, but at that time, the mayor's office had said Nothing (public) about about a PB ban.

Nobody has said anything about the legal status of PB & PBx's now in OSPCA & other local shelters & rescues. These dog exist, so they should be exempted from pts (or so says M. Bryant) by are they 'owned' in the legal sense?

Anybody who is kidding themselves that no dogs, puppies will die, except the 'biters' on account of this legislation is flat out wrong.

And how did 'Frustrated' come by the 1% number for percentage PB's in the populatation of dogs, in Ontario/Toronto/ the GTA??? Nobody knows how many unlicensed dogs there are anywhere at anytime. Many of the dogs that show up in shelter have no tags, or microchipping. And nobody is keeping stats by breed on the ones that are identifyable. not the municality, & not the Chip data bases.

mastifflover
September 28th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Well I have been reading this thread for a while and other than a few vaild posts there is a lot of useless drivel and name calling. What do you think this will accomplish for the breed and responsible owners? Nothing but it makes certain people feel like they know what they are talking about. You guys keep posting links and talking about breed restrictions in Italy. Do you really think our government cares about what they are doing in Italy or anywhere else. This AG has his mind set on a BSL and only is interested in that side of the story. So if you think you by ranting and raving and not having your facts straight will get anything accomplished you are sadly mistaken. This was an important thread and you have turned it into a playground for childrens name calling and bullying. Grow up and if at all possible you could debate this like adults not a bunch of rude morons or start your own link and anybody with something of value to say will not need to go there. Personally I feel this ban is only going to hurt the responsible owners and not do anything to the morons who have abused and made these dogs vicious. If you ban them they will just move on to more aggressive and larger breeds. But since the government really is not concerned about anything but making themselves look good, it really is like smashing your head against a brick wall. It will probably be as sucessful as the gun ban because as you know all criminals register their guns.

sammiec
September 28th, 2004, 01:23 PM
But since the government really is not concerned about anything but making themselves look good, it really is like smashing your head against a brick wall. It will probably be as sucessful as the gun ban because as you know all criminals register their guns.

I love it. It's so true. The government tries to make us believe that they care by asking for our input "Please email us -we care." then they respond with a huge mass mailer. Gimme a break. No one reads what we have to say. It's negative yes, but sometimes the truth hurts. These people will sit around a desk and talk about their weekend, the kids, the weather and then say "Oh, yeah.. those pit bulls, whatcha wanna do about that?" and then the other person will sit back in his chair, put his feet on the table and say, "I hate 'em, lets just get rid of them, then people will shut up. They'll get over it." DONE!! That's it.
Letter upon letters will not change that. And sitting here posting loads of links, stats, and comments will not change it either. It's something that we will have to face, it's envitiable, just a matter of time for them to implement it that's all.

LavenderRott
September 28th, 2004, 01:40 PM
I love it. It's so true. The government tries to make us believe that they care by asking for our input "Please email us -we care." then they respond with a huge mass mailer. Gimme a break. No one reads what we have to say. It's negative yes, but sometimes the truth hurts. These people will sit around a desk and talk about their weekend, the kids, the weather and then say "Oh, yeah.. those pit bulls, whatcha wanna do about that?" and then the other person will sit back in his chair, put his feet on the table and say, "I hate 'em, lets just get rid of them, then people will shut up. They'll get over it." DONE!! That's it.
Letter upon letters will not change that. And sitting here posting loads of links, stats, and comments will not change it either. It's something that we will have to face, it's envitiable, just a matter of time for them to implement it that's all.

Well, posting stats, links and comments may not stop what happened in Windsor last night but, since this is a public forum, if there is a chance that any statistic, link or comment I make may inform someone of the truth behind BSL, then I will continue to post them.

The people who make the laws are accountable to the people who put them in office. If you don't like the way things are going then you have a couple of options. You can try to educate as many people as you can so that they can vote with their minds and not depend on media hysteria for information. Or you can sit on your hands, do nothing and think that everything is inevitable.

Breed bans are NOT inevitable. Not if I have a breathe left in my body. I will continue to research and educate until I am unable to do it anymore. If a breed ban is implemented in my community then I will fight tooth and nail to see it overturned. I will be da*&ed if I am going to sit by and let it happen without doing something. If this isn't your thing, so be it. My mom is passionate about greyhound rescue but isn't concerned in the least about BSL. Quite frankly, I don't care what causes she spends her time on. What really gets me is people who think that other people who are fighting for their rights, be it BSL, gun ownership or whatever, are wasting their time.

sammiec
September 28th, 2004, 02:18 PM
Well, posting stats, links and comments may not stop what happened in Windsor last night but, since this is a public forum, if there is a chance that any statistic, link or comment I make may inform someone of the truth behind BSL, then I will continue to post them.

Fair enough, I see you point, but at the same time people just lash out and complain that the stats are one sided and the thread turns into what it has here. I realize that you're one to take this matter to heart and do what you can to help. I didn't necessarily mean that comment for you LavR, I know what you do and I know that you're feelings are legit. I appreciate your input, but when you have someone like this "frustrated" person, I just feel that your resources are being wasted on someone who appears to be here to stir the pot.

The people who make the laws are accountable to the people who put them in office. If you don't like the way things are going then you have a couple of options. You can try to educate as many people as you can so that they can vote with their minds and not depend on media hysteria for information. Or you can sit on your hands, do nothing and think that everything is inevitable.
I don't think that everything is inevitable, I guess it the fact that I have little to no confindence in politicians. Pretending to really care about what the public thinks, but in the end they will do what they want to do, not what's right.
I completely agree with you re: holding owners responsible for the actions fo their animals. I am willing to be held accountable for something that my dog might do (praying it never comes to that.) And regulating owners, not the dogs... but in the end, what would cost more? Implementing these classes and licenses, having people register with law enforcement when they get a pit bull, fining and charging people for their dogs actions, holding more people in overcrowded jails for their dog kmauling someone...
Or killing the pit bulls that are sitting in the shelters and outright banning the breed. It takes alot less effort and money - IMHO.

Breed bans are NOT inevitable. Not if I have a breathe left in my body. I will continue to research and educate until I am unable to do it anymore. If a breed ban is implemented in my community then I will fight tooth and nail to see it overturned. I will be da*&ed if I am going to sit by and let it happen without doing something. If this isn't your thing, so be it. My mom is passionate about greyhound rescue but isn't concerned in the least about BSL. Quite frankly, I don't care what causes she spends her time on. What really gets me is people who think that other people who are fighting for their rights, be it BSL, gun ownership or whatever, are wasting their time.

Sorry, but I never meant to imply that you were wasting your time. I was really into the whoel BSL prevention and helping out, mailers, flyers, and talking to others to encourage an open mind about pit bulls. It's been really taking a toll on me lately... I am usually a strong person when it comes to things like this; I just feel helpless and discouraged. I can't tell you how many times since the beginning of summer I have faced ignorant people with their stupid comments and such.

Sorry LavR that I offended you.

LavenderRott
September 28th, 2004, 02:54 PM
To be honest, once "frustrated" calmed down, the posts are not that bad and worth the read and response. Once I calmed down. LOL! And quite frankly, I don't mind taking the time to respond. This is a public forum after all. Many people come here to read and don't become members. Maybe one of them will learn something from what I have posted. Maybe it will give them a reason to pause and think about what they have heard from the media and they will decide to look in to what the real facts are.

Some of the stats are one sided. That is because there is no regulating them or the way they are collected. I sure wish I could figure out a way to fix that.

I must admit, I was a bit surprised by your wait and see attitude. Usually you are quite the go-getter. I understand the frustration though. I was supposed to go to Windsor last night but instead I went and bought a dress for my wedding on Friday. From the sounds of things, the council members there already had their minds made up and it would have been a wasted trip. I still feel quilty, though.

sammiec
September 28th, 2004, 03:05 PM
I must admit, I was a bit surprised by your wait and see attitude. Usually you are quite the go-getter. I understand the frustration though. I was supposed to go to Windsor last night but instead I went and bought a dress for my wedding on Friday. From the sounds of things, the council members there already had their minds made up and it would have been a wasted trip. I still feel quilty, though.

K - hold on.. you're getting married on FRIDAY and just sneak it in like it's so casual!!! YEAH FOR YOU!!! That's exciting!!!

I really didn't mean to beat you down or anything...your feeling about Windsor is kinda how I'm feeling about this one. I just have this feeling that they've already made up their mind and are just humouring us! I have to shake this feeling before it's too late!! Thank you for hanging in there!!

LavenderRott
September 28th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Hmmmm, thought I had mentioned it somewhere. Maybe not. Bought the license yesterday. :D

I know you didn't mean to make me feel bad or anything. I think this whole media/Ontario thing has really got me down though.

sammiec
September 28th, 2004, 04:12 PM
I never saw it anywhere! Congratulations! (Now that we've REALLY changed the subject!) ;)

Yeah, I think that's why I am so down about the whole thing. You're right, I have kinda given up, I feel defeated. There's just so much negative attention about the whole thing, it's just a real downer.
I just can't picture my poor little girl putting on an ugly hideous muzzle everytime we leave the house. It's actually kinda heart wrenching... I know she'll hate it and think she did something wrong... and people will be even more freightened of her... :(

mastifflover
September 28th, 2004, 04:52 PM
Hey congratulations finally something on a happy note Good luck and all the best

chico2
September 28th, 2004, 07:36 PM
Lavender you are getting MARRIED :D Congratulations!!!
Well,not to put a damper on your wedding,but there was yet another "pit-bull" attack today,a man mowing his lawn,needed 100 stiches to close his wounds.I am not sure where it was,I think Toronto.....I wish it was not so for all you people who have wonderful pitties,but I think their fate is sealed :(
Sammie I am so sorry for your wonderful doggie,but even more so for the hundreds of Pits in shelters,who has no loving owner to speak for them,it's just so sad :(

Akeeter
September 28th, 2004, 07:40 PM
That's great, all the best to you & your soon to be spouse. :D

Spurby
September 28th, 2004, 09:46 PM
Someone slandering a once close personal friend of mine on a message board WILL get my response and attention, i am sure many of you would have done the same? Enough said about that issue, since it does not belong here, though Mr. Frustrated felt the need to bring her name into this for no reason other than a personal vendetta.

Toronto City Council is considering passing at the very least a muzzle order against all pit bulls, they have passed this over to the board of health for their imput. Everyone within the GTA is strongly urged to call their local counciler to oppose this, as dogs with NO history of aggression or bites, will be included. This knee jerk reaction will not prevent the majority of bites, which happen in the home, or yard. This will ONLY effect the responsible pit bull owner, while the irresponsible will just choose another breed, or will refuse to muzzle.

I hope everyone who calls can let us know the reaction they got from their counciler? Calls are much better at this point rather than e-mails.

frustrating
September 28th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Someone slandering a once close personal friend of mine on a message board WILL get my response and attention, i am sure many of you would have done the same? Enough said about that issue, since it does not belong here, though Mr. Frustrated felt the need to bring her name into this for no reason other than a personal vendetta.

I will not engage in discussing that person. If you want to know the facts on that old topic, as discovered by me, police and various government agencies.. you'll have to email me.

I had simply used them as and example of person who becomes irrational when you try and have any kind of debate.



Toronto City Council is considering passing at the very least a muzzle order against all pit bulls, they have passed this over to the board of health for their imput. Everyone within the GTA is strongly urged to call their local counciler to oppose this, as dogs with NO history of aggression or bites, will be included. This knee jerk reaction will not prevent the majority of bites, which happen in the home, or yard. This will ONLY effect the responsible pit bull owner, while the irresponsible will just choose another breed, or will refuse to muzzle.

I hope everyone who calls can let us know the reaction they got from their counciler? Calls are much better at this point rather than e-mails.


On the issues (for a change) Knee Jerk is right, politicians have a problem.. they need to react on behalf of public concern (justified or not) and Health departments have a problem, and only politicians can act for them in new territory like this.

So why are we having a debate, why should people in opposite positions have this debate... I mean obviously you have a hate on for me so why should we debat the issue ?

So that when I run into a politican (Gary Goodyear attends a lot of chamber functions), or you do.... that a reasonable solution has been reached.


Instead of me saying... You know what ? I don't know what else to do besides ban breeding and importing. I might say...

This person I was talking to had a much better solution that might please both sides.

It was...

Do this ----

But of course... we still don't have an alternative do we ? And the politicians will act, because they have to act... so you should be trying to find a position you can advocate instead of opposing all action of any type.

They have no choice now, they will have to do something. Pro pit advocates are a minority and minorities often either lose out or compromise.

So what is a good plan of action by the governement ?

Akeeter
September 29th, 2004, 12:42 AM
Heavy fine or even jail time for people who's dogs maul, injure or kill.
Graduated licensing & hopefully education on dominant breeds, before people can own them. Obedience classes for these breeds before 6 months of age.
Manditory S/N -I'd like to see this for all dogs not in a breeding program with a licensed breeder.
Licensing for breeders, with more taken into account than abilty to feed & water their dogs.
Lifelong ban on animal ownership for animal abusers, dog fighters, puppy millers, et all. Fines, jail time..bring it on!
REAL causal investigations in the case of severe bites & fatalities. Was the dog healthy, spayed/neutered, & trained? Was the parent/caregiver negligent in leaving a child unattended with a dog? We have to stop treating dog bites as some great unpreventable mystery. They are very preventable in most cases.
Dog bite prevention programs for All children in elementary schools -Manditory.(statistically, most dog bites happen to children, usually male, in the 3 to 12 age bracket.)

O.K. I think most of these points were covered in other posts previously. So it's not like the anti BSL people are just saying they don't want BSL. We all know their are problems with owners, breeders, individual dogs, & sometimes the general public. (For instance, if you see a dog, don't scream at the top of your lungs, & run away. You might initiate a chase response from the dog. Same advice is given to people who live in bear country. Don't scream, don't run, & don't make eye contact. Just back away, slowly. Simple things like this can prevent dog bites. So is the abilty to tell by a dog's posture & body language if he is friendly or not. We tell kid's about drugs & alcohol, things they hopefully don't see everyday, be we don't want to tell them about how to deal with dogs? Even if their family doesn't own a dog, they probably see several dogs on the way to & from school everyday.)

Spurby
September 29th, 2004, 12:45 AM
I will not engage in discussing that person. If you want to know the facts on that old topic, as discovered by me, police and various government agencies.. you'll have to email me.

I had simply used them as and example of person who becomes irrational when you try and have any kind of debate.?

Keep it up, showing your true colours once again.

So why are we having a debate, why should people in opposite positions have this debate... I mean obviously you have a hate on for me so why should we debat the issue ?

If you read my previous post, i said i didn't want to debate this with you since you have different motives than you claim.

Instead of me saying... You know what ? I don't know what else to do besides ban breeding and importing. I might say...

This person I was talking to had a much better solution that might please both sides.

It was...

Do this ----

Several, if not dozens, of various level of government members know my position, as well as possible solutions/alternatives, as well as the people that know me. I have posted this on other forums as well, i simply do not always have the time to post everything i write on this issue, to every board i visit.

To put it simply(for others here who want to know), ask your member of government to enforce the by-laws already in place concerning leash laws, fines to the irresponsible owners(how about bigger fines?)and breeding licences. Get tough on the real problem out there, the irresponsible owners/breeders. If you fail to believe that can be enforced, then i have to wonder how they will enforce this BSL, and with what added funds they will do it with. Getting tough on the real issues WILL help prevent more bites(from ALL breeds) and irresponsible owners, it has worked very well in Calgary.

Akeeter
September 29th, 2004, 02:05 AM
about what goverments could do, not just continuing an argument.. :o

frustrating
September 29th, 2004, 09:11 AM
Keep it up, showing your true colours once again.


If you read my previous post, i said i didn't want to debate this with you since you have different motives than you claim.
[/quote
Showing my true colors ? By trying to get you to not have a discussion about your obsessions that everyones out to get you,... where people are trying to have a discussion on the issues.. it is my fault for slipping in that little bracketed comment... but I can't seem to get past it since you bring it up every time i post ? Once again.. it's not for here. Anyone who wants, even here... can always email or telephone me I don't hide or pretend to be somebody else.

And what motives are you imagining in your paranoid little world ?

[quote]
Several, if not dozens, of various level of government members know my position, as well as possible solutions/alternatives, as well as the people that know me. I have posted this on other forums as well, i simply do not always have the time to post everything i write on this issue, to every board i visit.

To put it simply(for others here who want to know), ask your member of government to enforce the by-laws already in place concerning leash laws,



fines to the irresponsible owners(how about bigger fines?)and breeding licences. Get tough on the real problem out there, the irresponsible owners/breeders. If you fail to believe that can be enforced, then i have to wonder how they will enforce this BSL, and with what added funds they will do it with. Getting tough on the real issues WILL help prevent more bites(from ALL breeds) and irresponsible owners, it has worked very well in Calgary.

So the next time a child is killed by an aggressive dog do you think the parent is going to say to the politicians

1. Well at least they'll get a bigger fine
or
2. Why didn't you push your legislation through.

and think before you write... this problem of public perception has nothing to do with wether the legislation would have worked or not.

A position of better education doesn't solve the problem for a very long time... and the people who own these dogs as weapons will not bother to get educated. Just like the people with guns who kill somebody and it turns out they have been deported 9 times and the police knew they were back.

If somebody had have bothered with better education years ago, it would have solved some of the problems now.

sammiec
September 29th, 2004, 09:13 AM
A position of better education doesn't solve the problem for a very long time... and the people who own these dogs as weapons will not bother to get educated. Just like the people with guns who kill somebody and it turns out they have been deported 9 times and the police knew they were back.

If somebody had have bothered with better education years ago, it would have solved some of the problems now.

So you're insisting that all pit bulls are put down because of the bad ones? Criminals go to jail for their actions, but ALL pit bulls ahould suffer because some of them have bitten.

Heck, why don't we put ALLhumans in jails because of the criminals.... there's a solution.

frustrating
September 29th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Heavy fine or even jail time for people who's dogs maul, injure or kill.
Graduated licensing & hopefully education on dominant breeds, before people can own them. Obedience classes for these breeds before 6 months of age.
Manditory S/N -I'd like to see this for all dogs not in a breeding program with a licensed breeder.
Licensing for breeders, with more taken into account than abilty to feed & water their dogs.
Lifelong ban on animal ownership for animal abusers, dog fighters, puppy millers, et all. Fines, jail time..bring it on!
REAL causal investigations in the case of severe bites & fatalities. Was the dog healthy, spayed/neutered, & trained? Was the parent/caregiver negligent in leaving a child unattended with a dog? We have to stop treating dog bites as some great unpreventable mystery. They are very preventable in most cases.
Dog bite prevention programs for All children in elementary schools -Manditory.(statistically, most dog bites happen to children, usually male, in the 3 to 12 age bracket.)

O.K. I think most of these points were covered in other posts previously. So it's not like the anti BSL people are just saying they don't want BSL. We all know their are problems with owners, breeders, individual dogs, & sometimes the general public. (For instance, if you see a dog, don't scream at the top of your lungs, & run away. You might initiate a chase response from the dog. Same advice is given to people who live in bear country. Don't scream, don't run, & don't make eye contact. Just back away, slowly. Simple things like this

If you ask the public, they'd probaly rather just only see dogs on the street that they can walk by and pat like most. (and yes, including lots of pits)

can prevent dog bites. So is the abilty to tell by a dog's posture & body language if he is friendly or not. We tell kid's about drugs & alcohol, things they hopefully don't see everyday, be we don't want to tell them about how to deal with dogs? Even if their family doesn't own a dog, they probably see several dogs on the way to & from school everyday.)

Lots of very useful suggestions... but my question is this ?

Bigger fines an penalties and bans on ownership

How many owners have an animal or animals that kill or mame more than once ? Show me an instance of violent crime, abuse or neglect that has been reduced by fines.

frustrating
September 29th, 2004, 09:22 AM
So you're insisting that all pit bulls are put down because of the bad ones? Criminals go to jail for their actions, but ALL pit bulls ahould suffer because some of them have bitten children.

Heck, why don't we put ALLhumans in jails because of the criminals.... there's a solution.

No I'm not talking from a rational point of view.. I'm mainting that politicians have to act... and so we better start seeing this from a political point of view...

Despite what little miss spurby has to say, politicans don't care what she says, especially if it's not going to solve the political problem of now having to provide the public a solution that looks like it will make the streets safer from dangerous dogs SOON.

It's not about whats write or wrong in this debate its about doing something the public feels like it's going to work.

The public around here knows there have been no fatalities since the breed ban in kitchener and if you don't want a breed ban you better come up with and option that they feel is going to work besides that.

sammiec
September 29th, 2004, 09:52 AM
The public around here knows there have been no fatalities since the breed ban in kitchener and if you don't want a breed ban you better come up with and option that they feel is going to work besides that.

I see your point.
The overwhelming population says that these dogs should be banned - no if, ands, or buts...it's affordable for the politicians and gains them popularity points with the majority.
Now, what do we have to offer. Some well behaved dogs, some responsible owners (because we say we are) and a whole heck of a lot of money to improve our animal adoption system, enforcement of irresponsible owners, jail time / space/ guards - shoud they decide to enforce with jail... more law enforcement to track, charge, and file against people that owns dogs that maul.

I would guarantee that Kitchener still has pit bull problems. I bet that they keep that information locked away because they don't want it to get out that they made this law and killed innocent dogs for nothing.
Criminals don't care about the law!! That's why they are criminals! It's only the responsible people with a conscience that suffer from these bans and bylaws!!
How many of the attacks that are reported in the wonderful media involve a dog that lives in the home, is UTD, and trained and socialized? I haven't heard of too many...most of these dogs are not UTD, they spend many hours alone and are not socialized OR like the last attack - they are trained to do it!! That lady is a fool, she should go to jail for manslaughter, or even premeditated attempted murder (is there sucha thing??) she taught those dogs to attack to cause bodily harm! She should pay the consequences, not the dogs!

lezzpezz
September 29th, 2004, 11:23 AM
Sorry to be in the dark on the sidelines here, but for the unseasoned, could you please explain the abbreviations, "UTD" and "IMHO". I get the gist, but am wracking my brains trying to sound it out! Thanks.

frustrating
September 29th, 2004, 11:24 AM
I see your point.
The overwhelming population says that these dogs should be banned - no if, ands, or buts...it's affordable for the politicians and gains them popularity points with the majority.
Now, what do we have to offer. Some well behaved dogs, some responsible owners (because we say we are) and a whole heck of a lot of money to improve our animal adoption system, enforcement of irresponsible owners, jail time / space/ guards - shoud they decide to enforce with jail... more law enforcement to track, charge, and file against people that owns dogs that maul.

I would guarantee that Kitchener still has pit bull problems. I bet that they keep that information locked away because they don't want it to get out that they made this law and killed innocent dogs for nothing.

But there are no fatalities, is what I was saying.. and if that continues then it will continue to be a model used in this debate. And if someone required 40 or hundreds of stitches, someones dog was killed etc.. (both often hapens) it wouldn't make it past the media.


Criminals don't care about the law!! That's why they are criminals! It's only the responsible people with a conscience that suffer from these bans and bylaws!!
How many of the attacks that are reported in the wonderful media involve a dog that lives in the home, is UTD, and trained and socialized? I haven't heard of too many...most of these dogs are not UTD, they spend many hours alone and are not socialized OR like the last attack - they are trained to do it!! That lady is a fool, she should go to jail for manslaughter, or even premeditated attempted murder (is there sucha thing??)


There is 1st, 2nd and 3rd (divided into negligent manslaughter or gross negligent manslaughter, or plain involuntary) degree manslaughter.... just like murder, but we have disctinctions within those. Because the victum wasn't chosen it's not first degree. It would/should fall under the same category as carrying around a loaded gun and someone bumps into you and it goes off killing them.. .(however that gets procsecuted).


she taught those dogs to attack to cause bodily harm! She should pay the consequences, not the dogs!


The dogs shouldn't have to pay the consequences.. but now that they are trained they are what they are, the loaded gun. Very Sad.

sammiec
September 29th, 2004, 11:30 AM
Sorry to be in the dark on the sidelines here, but for the unseasoned, could you please explain the abbreviations, "UTD" and "IMHO". I get the gist, but am wracking my brains trying to sound it out! Thanks.

No problem!!

IMHO = In my humble opinion
UTD = up to date (referring to the dogs vaccinations) :D

frustrating
September 29th, 2004, 11:31 AM
Give it time. The breed was banned, the idiots who train dogs to attack are still around. :rolleyes:

I had a corgi once (I got suckered into a puppy mill rescue runt) and talking to other corgi owners at the time... they had found too that they had to teach their dogs not to guard or be cagey in general ... is this true of pits too ? I don't think every pit who ever attacked was trained to or abused.

And i have no doubt those "idiots" you were talking about will get a rotty next time...

sammiec
September 29th, 2004, 11:35 AM
they had found too that they had to teach their dogs not to guard or be cagey in general ... is this true of pits too ?

I think it depends on the dogs demeanor... any dogs can be protective and defensive. My dog has only once barked as someone tried to open the gate to a friends backyard...
My hubby has been working nights this past week, when she hears a noise at the door, she stands up in the bed and waits, doesn't even leave the room to investigate the sounds....she doesn't bark when someonw knocks on the door, but wags her wiggle butt when a strangers enters. :)

lezzpezz
September 29th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Thank you for the tutorial. I will try to keep up to speed.

Akeeter
September 29th, 2004, 12:20 PM
fatalities & mauling probably had incidents happen before the last one.
The woman who had the 2 PitBull x Akita pups that mauled the paper del. girl were already on a muzzle order for killing a neighbour's dog.

In many reports, the neighbours have called animal control or police about dogs/(owners)that are running loose several times, before the attack happens. Usually nothing happened in the beginning because we don't have the facilities to deal with loose/loose & threatening dogs. (The East Indian man who was attacked in To. a few years ago was a victim of this. The dogs had been at large for days, (according to neighbours) before the attack.)

I think some of these people have bite incidents involving family or friends, & the bites don't get reported in the intersts of keeping peace. There was something like this mentioned with the young girl who was mauled by her Grandmother's Neopolitan mastiff. (Another illegal kennel. This one had a tiger on the premises at one time.) The girl went in to pet a litter of puppies, & the mother dog turned on her. Later the child's mother claimed that the dogs & situation had been mis-represented to her, even though she supported her mother's breeding kennel in the beginning.

There may be some incidents that happen 'out of the blue', but I don't think a lot do. There are signs long before a serious bite or mauling happens. The owners don't take action, get their dog into training, pts, or whatever it takes to stop a worse incident. (This happens with All Breeds, not just Pits & the usual suspects.)

doggy lover
September 29th, 2004, 10:14 PM
I believe in bad owners not bad dogs. You see people ( mostly guys )buying a pitbull as a status symbal ( maybe they are lacking in some other department) they don't take into concideration the training that goes along with a strong willed dog. I don't think they are for first time owners in anyway, I was chased by a pit bull when I was 8 months pregnant and I blame the owners for not having it in a proper fenced in yard and they couldn't handle the dog. It also attacked another dog in the area and it ended up with stitches. I moved before I found out what happened to the dog. I use to own a 120 lb dog and I would watch people cross the street not to pass him little did they know he was a gentle giant who just loved children, I have also met pit bulls that are properly trained and thought what wonderful dogs they were. So to destroy or to not allow a breed because of stupid people is not fair. Even having to muzzle them when in public would be better than banning them. I own a cat that can be nasty will she be next.

Akeeter
September 29th, 2004, 10:49 PM
How many owners have an animal or animals that kill or mame more than once ? Show me an instance of violent crime, abuse or neglect that has been reduced by fines.[/QUOTE]

There are dogs around that have bitten more than once. (Bandit @ THS comes to mind first.) There are dogs that are clearly a danger, & have been for some time before the actual bite, or mauling occurs.

The woman with the 2 PitAkita pups that mauled the newspaper delivery girl were on muzzle order from the city becuase of previous attack on a neighbours' dog. For some reason, the owner tried to muzzle them outside the house when they attacked the young girl.(Order in place, but not followed by the owner.)

The 2 dogs that attacked the East Indian gentleman on his way home from work had been at large for Days, according to the neighbours in news reports.
They had called both animal control & the police, but perhaps the dogs were not found by either? (-So much for ability to enforce the laws we have. Do we want to try a dozen more?)

The woman with the Neo mastiff kennel, where the grandaughter was mauled by a F. Neo. Mastiff with pups was an illegal kennel. Zoning by-laws.
So nobody noticed this? At first the child's mother defended her mom's kennel & practices. Later, she decided she was wrong. (Law in place, no enforcement again.)

Th recent attack by 2 Staffy guard dogs on teenager mowing the lawn...Why do you need 2 trained guard dogs? Doesn't some barking by a couple of formidable dogs at the window deter most criminals? If you are gonna have guard dogs, shouldn't you do a check on your yard Before you let them out? Making sure the gates are shut, & fences secure? Esp. if you have somebody doing yard work for you? The neighbour's cat probably can't read. If you are going to have dogs like these, you need to be extra careful. (No law in place, but perhaps there should be on guard dogs?)

Fines often do not change behavours of neglect & abuse. (Ie:The Miseners, working on their 3rd. charge of puppy milling.) After the 2nd charge, why didn't these people go to jail? If I remember correctly thay had already been ordered not to have.......? animals ...in some capacity.
I can't remember exactly what number of dogs if any they were allowed to have if any-??, but it wasn't anything like the number of dogs they were found to have on the second charge. So, no pets for life & jail time. But again, does the OSPCA have time & money to trail around after re-located people, searching for dogs hidden in the bush?

(Once again we can't afford to enforce the laws we have. So give us more laws we can't enforce.) :confused:

Akeeter
September 30th, 2004, 12:22 AM
(didn't notice we had gone to 4 pages now! Sorry!) :eek:

moontamara
October 1st, 2004, 09:06 PM
BANTHEPITBULL, if you want to join a discussion, please READ all of the posts in the thread and respond to what is being written about in the thread. Writing one post about your feelings about pit bulls and then copying and pasting it to every thread at all related to pit bulls is obnoxious, and unhelpful. If you want to get into healthy debate here, go ahead, but no one will listen to you if you don't listen to them, and YOU'RE NOT LISTENING! No one here wants to promote pit bulls, even those who have a pit bull of their own that they love. These people aren't breeding pit bulls or even buying pit bulls from breeders -- they have all rescued pit bulls, and they deserve their opinions to be listened to. So at least READ THEIR POSTS and then respond to what is being written, if you have something to add. I'm not saying you have to agree.

LavenderRott
October 1st, 2004, 11:35 PM
thank you for letting me know the attorney general's email, i've let him know of some specific reasons why pitbulls should be banned in ontario.

your pitbull might be the nicest dog in the world...but i'm mad at the breed b'coz:

- i'm sick and tired of having to pick my dog up when some off-leash adult pitbull comes running around

- i'm sick and tired of having to carry a hammer to defend myself and my dog when i get in a deathmatch with a pitbull

- i'm sick and tired of the fact that my young cousin got his jacket's hood grabbed by a pitbull and for that he is terrified of all dogs now

- i'm sick and tired of having had to read about cases in the newspapers which involved pitbulls mauling and almost killing humans and small pets

- i'm sick and tired of being terrified by pitbulls. ENOUGH

get some sense now and realise that pitbulls aren't suuposed to be kept in densely populated areas. if you have a 100 acre ranch..and want to keep your pitbulls...sure go ahead....but YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE MINE BEGIN..

the WAR IS ON

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Well, it sure is nice to see that you have done a little research before you posted your little tirade. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you should be mad at the idiot that let their dog run loose?

I am sick and tired of the press too. I can't think of a single reporter that can identify a pit bull any better then I bet you can.

The Canadian Safety Council, The Canadian Humane Society, the Canadian Kennel Club, and the Canadian Veteranarian Association (or whatever the name of the vet's group is) have all said that a breed ban WILL NOT solve the dog bite problem.

Both the James Waddell inquest and the Courtney Trempe inquests said that a breed ban won't solve the problem.

The bite statistics out of Winnepeg, I believe, prove that pit bull bans don't work. Yes, pit bull bites have gone down. Now German Shepherds and shepherd mixes are biting.

You keep fighting. I am sure Mr. Bryant will love your letter and wave it around like the flag it is. Neither one of you is interested in the truth. I am so sorry to hear that.

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
October 2nd, 2004, 12:22 AM
First off, before you rant about something you know nothing about, do your research. The problem lies right on the owners and irresponsible breeders -- NOT the entire breed. Secondly, don't believe everything the media says. I have lost track of how many times they've made MAJOR breed misidentification, intentionally or otherwise (to cause sensationalism, ya know.)

Breed bans work? HAH. That explains why my friend, who lived in an area were there's canine dictatorship (AKA Breed Specific Legislation) was mauled by a "friendly" breed and needed eight surgeries, and that England's bites have gone up since the Pit Bull ban. Ultimately, breed bans/restrictions endanger people, not protect them, by giving the community a false sense of security.

Some sites for you:

http://www.realpitbull.com
http://pitbulls.angelpaws.com/
http://pbrc.net/petbull/ (read Positive Press)
http://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/failedBSL.htm
http://www.workingpitbull.com/
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/

BANTHEPITBULL
October 2nd, 2004, 11:51 AM
If I wasn't affected, I won't be mad and won't have cared about the issue at all.

Consider the following truth : Kitchener banned pitbulls in 1997 because the two years previous to that there had been 35 pitbull attacks. Since 1997, there have been 8 incidents between dogs and between dogs and people. BREED BANS DO WORK.

In Canada, pitbulls are also banned in Windsor and Winnipeg, among the places I know of.

Most people who get pitbulls get them precisely because they know its the most aggressive breed of dogs. And now this breed has outlived human generosity by attacking and mauling one of our own. Pitbulls have lost their reason to exist, and a blanket ban on pitbulls in Ontario seems like the only viable solution. Muzzles and short-leashes, etc aren't the solution as these are powerful animals. Neither are after-the-fact imprisonment/fines.

If you have a viable solution, then you need to tell the Minister and the press how another such pitbull attack can be prevented, without you having to lose your dog.

It's a given that some sort of legislation is coming soon, it cannot be prevented. Only those who own a pitbull/their close relatives,friends are likely to oppose such a ban....and that is a very small number indeed when compared to those who support such a ban !

I am sure many people would like to keep wild cats, reptiles, etc as pets (and some do). Pitbulls need to be moved in the same category and off our streets. Humans First.

Writing4Fun
October 2nd, 2004, 12:06 PM
Pitbulls have lost their reason to exist, and a blanket ban on pitbulls in Ontario seems like the only viable solution.
And what, exactly, is the purpose of any breed? Should people not own Collies if they don't have sheep for it to herd? Should people stop owning Parson (Jack) Russel Terriers if they have no intention of hunting badgers?

I do not own a Pit Bull, nor do I intend to ever own one (my personal choice, nothing against the breed itself). I don't personally know anyone who owns a Pittie either, or any of the Bull breeds or crosses thereof. Yet I am still wholeheartedly against the ban. Why? You said yourself that people who own these animals are in it because the dog is tough. Those are the kinds of owners who create the nasty dogs you have come to know. There are far more responsible owners out there raising beautiful family pets that you will never know of because they don't go out and attack people. These people who raise vicious animals will not care if government takes away their Pitties. They'll move on to the next "vicious" breed. Then what? Ban that too? OK, so let's ban the Rottie, GSD, Doberman, Akita, yadd yadda ... what will we be left with? Everyone owning Chihuahuas? I've been attacked by two of them - my Mom's neighbor's dog who escaped from their yards and didn't want me walking up my mother's front steps. Now what? What kind of dog do you own? I bet there have been attacks from that breed as well. And before you tell me that it couldn't cause the kind of harm that a Pittie does, think again. My year-old child would certainly be horribly scarred if a Chi got at his face.

BANTHEPITBULL
October 2nd, 2004, 12:15 PM
quote "I don't own a pit and oppose BSL for any breed."

you will lose interest in all this pretty soon, since you have nothing to lose if a ban comes into effect or otherwise as well.

But I have been affected and am now committed more than ever before to support the ban.

Lets see if you will be still debating this issue few months from now, or will you spearhead a court challenge ? do you have the resources and the motivation to do that ? I doubt it.

This ain't your fight, and it's a public safety issue now.

And, pitbulls and rottweilers can kill (and have killed) an adult person; whereas other dogs cannot.

LavenderRott
October 2nd, 2004, 12:28 PM
Here is the truth for you. In Kitchner, they have stopped gathering dog bite information so they have NO idea if their ban is working. Nor do they care to know as the ban is popular with the residents of that sad town. Humane Society workers there have gone on record stating that the number of dog bites have NOT decreased. Just different breeds doing the biting now. (Sorry, no offense meant to those forum members who live in Kitchner.)

Winnepeg. Lets talk about Winnepeg for a moment. Pit bulls were banned there in 1990. Lets just look at a couple of their statistics.

Dog Bites in Winnepeg:
1990 - 214
1991 - 275
1992 - 264
1993 - 256
1994 - 301

The year before the Pit Bull ban went into affect in Winnepeg there were 28 pit bull bites. That same year there were 95 bites by shepherds and shepherd mixes.

As a registered voter in my country, it is my RESPONSIBLITY to research the facts that my politicians use to gather voters to them. If my political leaders want to use healthcare to garner voters, then I need to know whether or not their plan will actually work or if they are simply blowing smoke up my @ss to get my vote. Mr. Bryant has taken a very emotional issue, screwed the statistics around to suit his purpose, ignored every knowledgable organization in Canada and you have bought it, hook, line and sinker.

meggie1425
October 2nd, 2004, 12:30 PM
Consider the following truth : Kitchener banned pitbulls in 1997 because the two years previous to that there had been 35 pitbull attacks. Since 1997, there have been 8 incidents between dogs and between dogs and people. BREED BANS DO WORK.

BANTHEPITBULL, you must like to hear yourself talk(or type...) Because your probably the only one on this forum who wants to ban pitbulls, and your not convincing anyone. Why dont YOU consieder the following truth: more people kill people then any other animals do (including pitbulls) so maybe we should ban certain "breeds" of people?? You sound like the typical selfish human. Were the only important species, and no other animals besides us have a meaning to live, eh??

Lucky Rescue
October 2nd, 2004, 12:33 PM
BREED BANS DO WORK.

Really? Can you give me one example of any bans that have ever worked?

From Prohibition to bans on drugs and guns, bans do nothing but provide a lucrative trade for criminal element and put whatever is being banned into precisely the wrong hands. Why should breed bans be any different?

Murder is also banned, but that's never stopped anyone.

If you would think about this logically, you would see that BSL is not the answer. It merely hurts responsible people, and will not stop the irresponsible and criminal type.

Writing4Fun
October 2nd, 2004, 12:34 PM
Banthepitbull, please answer my questions. I honestly would like to know. What breed of dog do you own? And what is the original purpose of that particular breed?

LavenderRott
October 2nd, 2004, 12:40 PM
quote "I don't own a pit and oppose BSL for any breed."

you will lose interest in all this pretty soon, since you have nothing to lose if a ban comes into effect or otherwise as well.

But I have been affected and am now committed more than ever before to support the ban.

Lets see if you will be still debating this issue few months from now, or will you spearhead a court challenge ? do you have the resources and the motivation to do that ? I doubt it.

This ain't your fight, and it's a public safety issue now.

And, pitbulls and rottweilers can kill (and have killed) an adult person; whereas other dogs cannot.

I have been debating this issue for a couple of years now, and sorry, I don't see my participation in stopping BSL slowing down for a minute. Hell, I was sending out e-mails on my wedding day!

The dogs you want to ban are the dogs that are used by criminals and thugs to protect their crack cocaine and the rest of their crap. Believe you me, if they can't use pit bulls, they will find another breed. Sadly, they will turn to large working breeds (like my rottweilers) next.

In the U.S. the following breeds have also killed. In the last 35 years there have been

1 person killed by a Brittany Spaniel
1 death by a Chesapeake Bay Retriever
3 people killed by dachshunds
4 people killed by Golden Retrievers
1 person killed by an Irish Setter
4 people killed by Labrador Retrievers
1 person killed by a Pomeranian
1 person killed by a Westhighland White Terrier.

BANTHEPITBULL
October 2nd, 2004, 12:47 PM
Quote "The public safety issue rests with owners of dogs who train same to be aggressive. The most recent pit attack in Toronto happened because:

(a) The owner ADMITTED training her two dogs to attack ;

(b) The owner stupidly didn't make sure her yard was clear before letting the two dogs out;

(c) The dogs did what their moron of an owner had TRAINED them to do;

(d) The guy who was cutting the grass was like you - thick as a plank. He knew that owner had attack dogs and should have alerted the owner to his presence before he entered her yard. "

If that owner didn't have pitbulls, then that guy won't be lying on a hospital bed with a chunk of his head removed (bitten off) and his life shattered. And I care more about that because I can relate to that.

Sure, a lot of things should have been done/shouldn't have been done by the owner and the victim, but the bottomline is that humans aren't perfect and will not do things as they are supposed to do everytime. And that is why we have provisions to protect us from ourselves. Why do you think there is an assault weapons ban ? And I am sure you have reasons for another pitbull attack that happened a few weeks ago in Toronto where police had to shoot the dogs, who as one policeman described, were "devouring the man". And what about the attack, also in July, when 2 pitbulls, who were on a leash, broke away and killed someone else's small dog....who was 13 yrs old. Did you see the picture of the owner of that dog sitting on her porch, crying ?

LavenderRott
October 2nd, 2004, 12:50 PM
Get OUT of here!!! *doing an Elaine shove* :eek:

Dachshunds and a pom? :eek:

All breeds will be banned if we don't stop the media-fuelled insanity now!

There was also a very sad story of the woman who was on serious pain meds after having surgery. She fell asleep on her couch and while she was sleeping, her toy poodle ate her bottom lip off.

LavenderRott
October 2nd, 2004, 12:52 PM
Quote "The public safety issue rests with owners of dogs who train same to be aggressive. The most recent pit attack in Toronto happened because:

(a) The owner ADMITTED training her two dogs to attack ;

(b) The owner stupidly didn't make sure her yard was clear before letting the two dogs out;

(c) The dogs did what their moron of an owner had TRAINED them to do;

(d) The guy who was cutting the grass was like you - thick as a plank. He knew that owner had attack dogs and should have alerted the owner to his presence before he entered her yard. "

If that owner didn't have pitbulls, then that guy won't be lying on a hospital bed with a chunk of his head removed (bitten off) and his life shattered. And I care more about that because I can relate to that.

Sure, a lot of things should have been done/shouldn't have been done by the owner and the victim, but the bottomline is that humans aren't perfect and will not do things as they are supposed to do everytime. And that is why we have provisions to protect us from ourselves. Why do you think there is an assault weapons ban ? And I am sure you have reasons for another pitbull attack that happened a few weeks ago in Toronto where police had to shoot the dogs, who as one policeman described, were "devouring the man". And what about the attack, also in July, when 2 pitbulls, who were on a leash, broke away and killed someone else's small dog....who was 13 yrs old. Did you see the picture of the owner of that dog sitting on her porch, crying ?

Do you honestly believe that because there is an assault weapons ban, there are no assault weapons!?! I am sure that most Canadian drug dealers own at least one.

Writing4Fun
October 2nd, 2004, 12:54 PM
And that is why we have provisions to protect us from ourselves.
So, because humans are too stupid to stop drinking and driving, there should be a ban on cars, or alcohol, or both? And because we're too stupid to know what's good for us, there should be an outright ban on smoking, or junk food? I think human beings have become too dependent on the government to do their thinking for them and have therefore abandoned the proper use of their own common sense.

montys_pet
October 2nd, 2004, 12:54 PM
The dogs you want to ban are the dogs that are used by criminals and thugs to protect their crack cocaine and the rest of their crap. Believe you me, if they can't use pit bulls, they will find another breed. Sadly, they will turn to large working breeds (like my rottweilers) next.


I agree with this qoute because in winnipeg Rotti's were the next breed they tried to ban.

Writing4Fun
October 2nd, 2004, 12:56 PM
I'm still waiting to hear what breed of dog Banthepitbull owns...

jenjen
October 2nd, 2004, 12:58 PM
Ignorance has become a way of life for you I see. Such silly remarks.

Its hard to remember all the useless information that you decided to share with everybody, but I do remember the one remark you made about the only people opposing this ban would be owners of pitbulls or close relatives. Well, I do not own a pitbull myself nor do any of my family members, but I do think that the idea of banning this breed is STUPID. For someone to say that all Pitbulls attack is like saying that all Iraqi's are terrorists. Or that all Native Americans are drunks. Do you believe these remarks to be true?
Dogs attack because their owners are useless. If you train your pet and give it the attention and love that is needs to thrive, you will in turn raise a very loyal and loving animal.

People are not born to kill and maim, they are taught these traits, just the same as animals. Pitbulls have been bread to be an aggressive breed......why? because some useless turds decided that they would be good fighting dogs. Now is this the the fault of the breed or is it the fault of the humans that had control of this breed?

I would guess that if I taught my Sheltie to bite and growl and be a crazy dog, she would simply because she wants to please me.

The only thing that these animals should be blamed for, is the fact that they are TOO loyal to their owners.

There are plenty of people on this website that have shared pictures and stories of their pitbulls, describing what amazing animals they really are. If any single person on this website that owned a pitbull were to invite me to their house, I would not be afraid. WHY? Because these animals have been raised by people who care and who have given their animals everything that they have ever needed.

With your negative attitude and the ignorance that you have shared, I would be more afraid of you then any wigglebutt out there!!!!!!!

LavenderRott
October 2nd, 2004, 12:59 PM
Sorry. I live in a country where I have rights. I have the right to protect myself from a government that feels the need to dictate every aspect of my life. If my government feels the need to protect me from myself, then I would much prefer they tried to figure out a real way to protect me and my family from drunk drivers then someone's dog. Drunk drivers kill more people in Canada in a day then dogs kill people in a year. Why isn't Mr. Bryant paying a bit more attention to this? I am willing to bet that drunk driving accidents have become so commonplace in Canada that the press doesn't even bother to report them anymore. I know that is how it is in the U.S.

Loki
October 2nd, 2004, 01:05 PM
If that owner didn't have pitbulls, then that guy won't be lying on a hospital bed with a chunk of his head removed (bitten off) and his life shattered. And I care more about that because I can relate to that.



There was an incedent recently where 2 young boys were severely attacked by a German Shep. I can't recall the link, but the topic is on this board somewhere.

Anti-ban and pro-ban people, the reasonable ones at least, all want the same end result: Stopping dog attacks.

A ban on a specific breed can never reach that goal. Unless they ban all dogs, and the government would never do that( too many voters).

The Ontario government( who has a poor approval rating) took this sensitive issue, and decided to use it for political gain.

I have to ask, did you know who Michael Bryant was before all this?
I'd bet most Canadians didn't, but they do now.

This ban won't make you any safer. It just excuses the actions of the abusive and negligent( It's not their fault, those dogs are evil).

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
October 2nd, 2004, 01:18 PM
I say we ban the troll. :rolleyes:

BANTHEPITBULL
October 2nd, 2004, 01:31 PM
Quote "Anti-ban and pro-ban people, the reasonable ones at least, all want the same end result: Stopping dog attacks."

That is absolutely right. But, at this time, pitbulls are the focus because there simply have been too many pitbull attacks recently. If pitbulls are banned, and then we find that rottweiler attacks are going up, then presumably rottweilers would be banned. And they are infact banned in most countries of the world. Rottweiler owners would need to let their dogs off-leash and go attack other people and pets in Canada before we have a discussion on banning rottweilers here.

Banning the breed altogether seems like the only viable solution so far, as no one has come up with any other suggestions that would prevent pitbull attacks specifically. The onus is on those who don't like the idea of a breed specific ban to propose viable solutions. As I said earlier, muzzle-when-outdoors and keeping pitbulls on short leash aren't likely to solve the problem. Having strict punishments and fines and million dollar liability insurance coverages is also unlikely to prevent such attacks, as people are unlikely to remain vigilant about their pitbulls all the time.

So if you've got ideas and you really don't want a ban banning pitbulls, then you need to let the right people know about your suggestions.

Loki
October 2nd, 2004, 01:53 PM
prevent pitbull attacks specifically.


That is the crux of the problem, to me. The media and the government have diverted people's attention to focus on one breed.
Many animal agencies have offered numerous suggestions to stop dog bites.

The government doesn't want solutions. The media doesn't want solutions.
They want a good-ole-witch-hunt, to sell papers and attract voters.

Read the threads on this board, the information is all over the place.
And trust me, government has been offered solutions. Animal experts are pretty-much unanimously against this.

I'm sure that some of the pro-ban people are relatively intelligent.
To me, both the pro-ban and anti-ban people should be all over the government to be coming up with workable solutions, and not just hand-waving to distract people.

I don't understand why people would blindly want to implement an expensive,
and almost impossible to enforce law, that won't stop people from being bitten.( Winnipeg is proof enough)

Even you have to admit, with all the child-abductions, drugs, guns and crime in general, our Attorney General should have better things to do with his time.

pittymomma
October 2nd, 2004, 05:42 PM
BANTHEPITBULL,

You are against pit bulls, fine thats your own ignorance that you have to come to terms with. WHat breed of dog do you own??? I hope for your sake BSL will never affect your dog.


V& the brats

heeler's rock!
October 2nd, 2004, 07:17 PM
BANTHEPITBULL....I have been reading your other stupid posts on the other pit bull threads. I have to say, you are one stupid idiot. Your posts make absolutely no sense. You said in one thread that your dog was attacked by a pit bull? Well, are you sure it was even a pittie? You probably have no idea what a pittie even looks like, because we all know the media has no idea!!! :rolleyes: What if your dog was attacked by a bichon? or a chihuahua? then would you be preaching to ban pits? Your cousin who is now terrified of dogs because a dog (who you are assuming is a pit), attacked him. Well, how old is your cousin and why was he alone around a strange dog? That's the parents fault and the owner of the dog, not the dog's fault!! A dog is what you make it. They're like kids. If your child ran around stealing and doing drugs, and one day killed someone, would you tell the government to ban all kids? What about all black kids? Should they be banned because they might join a gang one day? What about asian kids? What about brown kids, like me? While you're at it, lets ban TV because there's too much violence and nudity on these days. Forget about responsible parenting, let's do everything for them because the human race is too stupid to do things for themselves!! It's people like you that cause so much distrust and angst among people. You are ignorant, and uneducated on this subject. Why don't you go take up a real fight with government and oppose the gun registry, and support a sex offender registry?? Why not support logical things insted of wasting time supporting a ban that will NEVER work??? You are a product of the media. They told you what you wanted to hear, and you bought into it like a good little conformist....... :mad:

frustrating
October 2nd, 2004, 11:35 PM
Do you honestly believe that because there is an assault weapons ban, there are no assault weapons!?! I am sure that most Canadian drug dealers own at least one.


Thats a bad example, because for most of the last 20 years in the United States there has been no assualt weapon ban.

Who has more of a problem with assualt weapons per capita ?

They have nearly 350 more gun related injuries.

Anyways, I agree with what your saying but I wouldn't use that example because of the above and because.

What about Rocket Launchers, Combat lasers etc... they're banned here, why are there almost none ? Because they are banned in the United States. Our Weapons come from there, pretty much every single one.

The other big difference is No one can tell you have an assualt weapon you can keep it secret forever if you want, you could even hide one in the house your wife wouldn't know you have. Can't hide your pit.

Suggesting you don't use the example does not invalidate your point.

BANTHEPITBULL
October 3rd, 2004, 12:26 AM
BANTHEPITBULL....I have been reading your other stupid posts on the other pit bull threads. I have to say, you are one stupid idiot. Your posts make absolutely no sense. You said in one thread that your dog was attacked by a pit bull? Well, are you sure it was even a pittie? You probably have no idea what a pittie even looks like, because we all know the media has no idea!!! :rolleyes: What if your dog was attacked by a bichon? or a chihuahua? then would you be preaching to ban pits? Your cousin who is now terrified of dogs because a dog (who you are assuming is a pit), attacked him. Well, how old is your cousin and why was he alone around a strange dog? That's the parents fault and the owner of the dog, not the dog's fault!! A dog is what you make it. They're like kids. If your child ran around stealing and doing drugs, and one day killed someone, would you tell the government to ban all kids? What about all black kids? Should they be banned because they might join a gang one day? What about asian kids? What about brown kids, like me? While you're at it, lets ban TV because there's too much violence and nudity on these days. Forget about responsible parenting, let's do everything for them because the human race is too stupid to do things for themselves!! It's people like you that cause so much distrust and angst among people. You are ignorant, and uneducated on this subject. Why don't you go take up a real fight with government and oppose the gun registry, and support a sex offender registry?? Why not support logical things insted of wasting time supporting a ban that will NEVER work??? You are a product of the media. They told you what you wanted to hear, and you bought into it like a good little conformist....... :mad:

You are one selfish buffoon...fyi, my cousin is 4 yrs old, was playing in his own backyard...when a pitbull from half a block away came wandering on HIS property and held the hood of his jacket in his teeth...when his parents came and managed to save their kid....otherwise you would have been reading about him in a newspaper and I'm sure you would have had some explanation/reasons even then.

And listen, pitbulls are NOT humans, they don't have the same rights, and if they go around attacking humans...even if we are at fault....they will still be blamed. There are better animals out there who deserve more sympathy. Here's a suggestion for you, why don't you go and visit that guy who had a part of his head ripped out by 2 pitbulls and maybe explain to him that it wasn't the dogs fault....these aren't really aggressive dogs.. and it's the society and the media's fault .....blah blah blah.

And I am TOTALLY DISGUSTED by your comment that "all black kids might join a gang someday". You are a friggin racist at heart and your comments reflect that. :mad:

Stewart
October 3rd, 2004, 02:07 AM
Hi!Could someone answer a question for me as I am curious after reading through this topic here over a few days now.My question is Have you ever over there had licenceing laws attached to dog owenership ? I do realise that in a huge country such as yours and with big states that you have it would be a real big logistical job.Also I can see that it still wouldnt be a quick fix against against the Idiots around who make these dogs into ferocious animals as I say I am just curious :confused:

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 08:58 AM
Thats a bad example, because for most of the last 20 years in the United States there has been no assualt weapon ban.

Who has more of a problem with assualt weapons per capita ?

They have nearly 350 more gun related injuries.

Anyways, I agree with what your saying but I wouldn't use that example because of the above and because.

What about Rocket Launchers, Combat lasers etc... they're banned here, why are there almost none ? Because they are banned in the United States. Our Weapons come from there, pretty much every single one.

The other big difference is No one can tell you have an assualt weapon you can keep it secret forever if you want, you could even hide one in the house your wife wouldn't know you have. Can't hide your pit.

Suggesting you don't use the example does not invalidate your point.

I don't generally use this analogy for exactly those reasons. However, assault weapons are used with much greater frequency than some would like to admit by the criminal element. The only reason that I used it here is because BTPB whipped it out like it was some kind of major accomplishment.

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 09:00 AM
Hi!Could someone answer a question for me as I am curious after reading through this topic here over a few days now.My question is Have you ever over there had licenceing laws attached to dog owenership ? I do realise that in a huge country such as yours and with big states that you have it would be a real big logistical job.Also I can see that it still wouldnt be a quick fix against against the Idiots around who make these dogs into ferocious animals as I say I am just curious :confused:

Almost every city in the U.S. and Canada has some requirement about licensing your dog with that city. Most dogs that attack, however, are unlicensed. This is because there is really no way to enforce a licensing law unless the dog gets loose. Then the fine is about $100 plus the cost of a license.

heeler's rock!
October 3rd, 2004, 12:13 PM
:mad: Oooohhhhh...BANTHEPITBULL......don't EVEN try calling me a racist!!!!!!!!!! You are really REALLY getting on my nerves. I am east indian and I don't have a racist bone in my body. My hubby is spanish, my best friend is white and her husband is black. You don't know me, or anything about me, so screw off!! It was an analagy that I feel you would agree with given that you are so stupid. Your 4 year old cousin most definitely should not have been left alone and his parents should have known better, but lets not blame them or the owner of the pit that let him loose, no, lets blame the helpless animal. If your 4 year old cousin started a fire because his "responsible" parents left matches out, would be preaching to have him put to sleep? No, you would blame the stupid parents that left matches lying around, and you would ask why they weren't watching him. Dumb a$$!!! The guy walking the 2 pits that attacked him, I can guarentee you there is more to that story that the media hasn't devulged. You need to get a life and do more research on a topic you know nothing about. You have some nerve calling someone you don't even know a racist. Thank you for proving my point that you really are one stupid idiot. :mad: :mad:

Lucky Rescue
October 3rd, 2004, 01:34 PM
when a pitbull from half a block away came wandering on HIS property and held the hood of his jacket in his teeth...when his parents came and managed to save their kid...

So are you calling this an attack? You don't mention what injuries were inflicted on anyone.

Was the child injured in any way? Were the parents? What wounds did they have? How did the parents "manage to save" the child without being hurt? (Or WERE they?)? I've never heard of a dog attack in which no one was bitten. If no one was bitten or hurt, how does this classify as an attack?

What is YOUR definition of an "attack"?

chico2
October 3rd, 2004, 02:51 PM
I have been reading most of what has been written,people being called racist etc....it is getting a little ugly :eek:
BTPB,came on here to get people riled up and it worked....there are people like him/her in every chat-room :mad:
This is after all a Forum for people who care about animals,including Pit-Bulls,he/she just does not belong here,but he/she is unfortunately saying what the majority of Ontarians are.
It's really very sad :(

Sneaky2006
October 3rd, 2004, 07:06 PM
when a pitbull from half a block away came wandering on HIS property and held the hood of his jacket in his teeth...
This does not sound like an attack... it sounds like a pit bull trying to save a kid from morons! :p

BANTHEPITBULL
October 3rd, 2004, 07:37 PM
What a proposed pitbull ban/dangerous dog legislation in Ontario should do:

-> Outright ban on all *new* pitbull and rott puppies/breeding/sale/purchase.

-> Ban pitbulls/rotts from densely populated areas.

-> Equate crime of the dog as being a crime of the owner and deal accordingly, levying massive fines and imprisonment.

-> Deal with existing pitbull/rott population. This is the most contentious issue,
---> Euthanise those currently in shelters. Do not promote further adoption.
---> For those people who currently own pitbulls/rotts and are obviously deeply attached to their dogs, a delicate approach is needed...which both prevents another pitbull/rott bite but also takes into consideration the fact that these dogs are probably family members now, and you just can't take them away for euthanization.
On this point, I am not sure what will work, but muzzling and short leashes aren't likely to be much effective. A combination of things are probably required, including substantial liability coverage requirements.


What could be the results of such a ban :

-> Gradually eliminate pitbull and rott population in Ontario. It took Britain 10-15 years to do that.

-> Pitbull attacks would and should be eliminated. Keeps the govt and the vast majority of the public happy and safe (atleast from pitbulls). Mission accomplished for the McGuinty government. If pitbull attacks still continue after such a law takes effect, the govt would be pushed to ban all pitbulls in sight (euthanize them 'all).

-> A lot of pitbulls would be saved from a lot of agony, especially those in rescue situations/shelters. Pitbull is also probably the most abused breed.

From what I understand, most people get pitbulls/rotts precisely because they are amongst the most powerful and aggressive dogs available; though some get them from shelters,etc...which isn't really a bad thing.

However, I am yet to come across a single responsible pitbull owner.

Lucky Rescue
October 3rd, 2004, 08:07 PM
From what I understand, most people get pitbulls/rotts precisely because they are amongst the most powerful and aggressive dogs available

Your "understanding" obviously comes from sensationalistic news reports, and you are dead wrong.

Do you know what Rottweilers were bred for? To pull carts and herd cattle. Did you know that? Do you think "the most aggressive dog available" would be a good choice for those chores? Again, please try and EDUCATE yourself so you don't sound so ignorant.
And like most owners of these breeds, everyone on this board who owns them are extremely responsible people.

AND again:

when a pitbull from half a block away came wandering on HIS property and held the hood of his jacket in his teeth...when his parents came and managed to save their kid...


So are you calling this an attack? You don't mention what injuries were inflicted on anyone.

Was the child injured in any way? Were the parents? What wounds did they have? How did the parents "manage to save" the child without being hurt? (Or WERE they?)? I've never heard of a dog attack in which no one was bitten. If no one was bitten or hurt, how does this classify as an attack?

What is YOUR definition of an "attack"?..
-----------------------------------------------------------

Can you please stop spewing hatred and misinformation long enough to answer these questions? YOU brought up this "attack" and we would like to know the details of it.

Bugsy
October 3rd, 2004, 08:15 PM
Ban the pitbull

Anyone who chooses such a name and comes to a place named PETS.ca is simply someone who thrives on arguements.... enough said.

heeler's rock!
October 3rd, 2004, 08:17 PM
And what then BTPB? Ban dobermans? Ban mastiffs? Ban shelties? Ban bulldogs? Ban chihuahuas? Ban great danes? Ban heelers? :eek: And the list goes on and on and on.......BANS DON'T WORK!!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!! You are so naieve to think that banning ANYTHING is gonna stop dog attacks. I am so tired of hearing people tell you the same things over and over again. Your posts make no sense and I for one would like to stop reading your BS, so please, unless you have a compelling argument to make about why pits should be banned, just get lost. This forum is for helping people and their pets, including pitbulls. This thread is to come up with ideas on how to STOP THE BAN, not promote it! (That's why the title is STOP PITBULL BAN IN ONTARIO. That should have been your first clue to stay away, DUH!!!)

Akeeter
October 3rd, 2004, 08:38 PM
Hi!Could someone answer a question for me as I am curious after reading through this topic here over a few days now.My question is Have you ever over there had licenceing laws attached to dog owenership ? I do realise that in a huge country such as yours and with big states that you have it would be a real big logistical job.Also I can see that it still wouldnt be a quick fix against against the Idiots around who make these dogs into ferocious animals as I say I am just curious :confused:
*******************
This is one of the problems I have with BSL. (I mentioned that Ontario is bigger than Texas, & a lot of that arera is no picnic to drive in for 7 months of the year.) I can't see BSL working for many reasons, not the least of which is the impossibility of enforcing it in an area this large. Every year there are puppymills busted in the bush, sometimes with hundreds of dogs involved. If somebody can make a buck out this, they will. The newspaper ad price of an intact F. Pitt Bull has gone from about $200.00/$250.00 to over $500.00.

If you are referrng to a graduated license system for larger or more dominant dogs, no we don't have that. (Likely we should, but if Gov's get involved it will involve paying more for these dogs, & no component of education about that breed will be part of the licensing system, or finding out the competence of the potential owner.) Paying more in licensing fees does nothing to improve safety, & lower dog bite stats. IMHO, part of the problem now is too many 12 to 21 year old 'tuff guys' are in charge of these dogs. And drug dealers never seem to be short of cash to pay for what they want.

We do have a basic dog licensing system, & pay less in most areas for spayed/neutered dogs. (In my area, senior citizens get a price break) But from the number of John Doe dogs that show up unlicensed &
un-microchipped at shelters, I couldn't even guess about what percentage of dogs are licensed, never mind spayed or neutered. Inmates at most shelters & pounds tend to be intact males, without identification of any kind.

Akeeter
October 3rd, 2004, 09:08 PM
Quote "Anti-ban and pro-ban people, the reasonable ones at least, all want the same end result: Stopping dog attacks."

That is absolutely right. But, at this time, pitbulls are the focus because there simply have been too many pitbull attacks recently. If pitbulls are banned, and then we find that rottweiler attacks are going up, then presumably rottweilers would be banned. And they are infact banned in most countries of the world. Rottweiler owners would need to let their dogs off-leash and go attack other people and pets in Canada before we have a discussion on banning rottweilers here.

Banning the breed altogether seems like the only viable solution so far, as no one has come up with any other suggestions that would prevent pitbull attacks specifically. The onus is on those who don't like the idea of a breed specific ban to propose viable solutions. As I said earlier, muzzle-when-outdoors and keeping pitbulls on short leash aren't likely to solve the problem. Having strict punishments and fines and million dollar liability insurance coverages is also unlikely to prevent such attacks, as people are unlikely to remain vigilant about their pitbulls all the time.

So if you've got ideas and you really don't want a ban banning pitbulls, then you need to let the right people know about your suggestions.
**************
Probably for every 100 resp. Rotti owners, there will be 1 idiot who will make the news with an attack by his dog, multiplied by the number of idiots owning Rottis per 100, & there we will be, back at square 1 with a Rotti ban on the horizon...& So on & so on..

"You can't legislate against stupidity." Or irresponsibility.

Most of the Pit Bull bans world wide have Not changed dog bite stats. They only stats that change involve Pit bulls, the bite incidents stay @ about the same number. Serious bites too.
Which 'right people'? Can you suggest how we get them to take the plugs out of their ears? Most of them seem to be fuelled by the idea that this is a promise they Can keep. (ROTFLMAO!) Maybe they might be able to, but it will cost them a bundle to do it.

Cflat
October 3rd, 2004, 09:39 PM
So very sad indeed. People need to be responsible for their children. If your child is a minor he/she is your responsibility. That is the legacy of a parent. If your dog is at large and bites someone you are responsible. A dog is like a minor child, your responsibility. If your dog is on your property and bites someone who was not invited that is your responsibility as the "bitten" or the parent of the "bitten". I do not believe in BSL, I believe in owner responsibility. People that have to own a powerful dog and are not responsible (spay/neuter/socialized/trained/loved as a family memeber) need to be shot and peed on. Those who keep these dogs will continue to after a ban and make money doing it. Give your head a shake BSL people. Register your guns it will decrease crime. Criminals don't register their weapons.

Lucky Rescue
October 3rd, 2004, 10:05 PM
People that have to own a powerful dog and are not responsible (spay/neuter/socialized/trained/loved as a family memeber)

Thank you Cflat - I meant to bring up that point. Of all the lurid "PIT BULL ATTACKS" in the hysterical headlines, most of the stories have a recurring theme. Besides the fact that many of these dogs are NOT pit bulls, I have yet to see one spayed/neutered, socialized, trained and loved housepet/family member pit bull implicated.

Invariably the articles contain references to the dog being a "guard dog", "getting off it's chain" or out of it's "cage". Dogs who live on chains, are kept outside, and in cages are not family member housepets, nor are they likely to be spayed or neutered or socialized. And they certainly aren't likely to be loved.:(

BANTHEPITBULL
October 3rd, 2004, 10:42 PM
heeler's rock you are not even worth responding to.

for the others, I can understand if you have concerns with how the ban/legislation will affect you directly (will/won't be allowed to keep your pitbull,etc), but surely, you still cannot be supporting continued breeding and adoption of pitbulls and rotts. If you aren't willing to concede an inch, and are still insisting on a Nothing approach (education for owners,etc), and are relaying this same message in all your communications to the govt and the media....boy...you are really hurting your cause. It suits me completely that every single pitbull is taken off the streets of Ontario by Nov 1, but that is not what I have been advocating, until now that is.

A simple fact is that pitbulls and rotts are banned from most communities and countries in the world, and for good reason. And if the ban can work for Kitchener, it can work for Toronto and the rest of Ontario. Doesn't matter if the ban failed in other places, just ONE is good enough.

This thread is to come up with ideas on how to STOP THE BAN, not promote it! (That's why the title is STOP PITBULL BAN IN ONTARIO. That should have been your first clue to stay away, DUH!!!)

And I intend to disrupt your efforts in trying to stop the ban, online or offline...at your rally..whenever and wherever it happens. You still don't get it heeler's rock, do you ? :D

heeler's rock!
October 3rd, 2004, 11:00 PM
heeler's rock you are not even worth responding to.

You just said I'm not worth responding too, yet, you respond to me....??

You still don't get it heeler's rock, do you ?

The only thing I get from you BTPB, is that you have no sense of morality. These pitbulls didn't ask to be in the hands of malicious and uncaring individuals, and those individuals should be punished for their deeds. They are hurting the breed and the people who love them.
Pitbulls are not the problem! People that mistreat them are! We are saying that there needs to be tougher laws on irresponsible breeders and irresponsible owners!! You still don't get THAT do you BTPB???!???!???

And if the ban can work for Kitchener, it can work for Toronto and the rest of Ontario. Doesn't matter if the ban failed in other places, just ONE is good enough.

Once again, YOUR POST MAKES NO SENSE!!
We have said on this thread, as well as others, that the ban in Kitchener did not work, so why are you assuming it did? Bans have failed EVERYWHERE!!! You did read this thread before responding didn't you? Otherwise you'd look pretty ignorant! Oh wait, maybe you didn't because you do look pretty ignorant!! :D

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:02 PM
BEING A BY-LAW FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF DOGS WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP OF MARIPOSA.



WHEREAS the Dog licensing and Livestock and Poultry Protection Act provides that By-laws be passed by Council of a local municipality for licensing and requiring the registration of dogs and for prohibiting or regulating the running at large of dogs in the Municipality.

WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Act Part 104 and Part 210 allows the passing of by-laws regulating the keeping of animals and regulations for the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality.

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MARIPOSA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. DEFINITIONS
(a) "abused dog"...means any dog which is;
(1) mistreated, beaten, tormented or teased
(2) deprived of water, or food, or shelter
(3) kept under unsanitary conditions
(4) abandoned
(5) trained for fighting other animals

(b) "at large"...means of the premises of the "owner" or keeper and not under the control of any person by any means. Mere presence of the "owner" or keeper does not indicate control. "At large" may also include a leashed dog which is not under the control of the "owner" or keeper. MUNICIPAL ACT-----SECTION 210 4

(c) "By-Law Enforcement Officer" includes a person or persons appointed by the By-Law of the Township of Mariposa for the purpose of enforcing the provisions contained in this By-Law or any of the other By-laws of the Corporation.

(d) "dog" means male or female dog - DOG LICENSING AND LIVESTOCK AND
POULTRY PROTECTION ACT------SECTION 123 1

(e) "Dog Control Officer" means any person appointed by the By-Law of the Council for the Corporation for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this By-Law or any act of the Legislature giving local municipalities authority to regulate or control any dog or its "owner".



(f) "enclosure"...means a pen or kennel run of sufficient height and stability to contain a specific dog and forming a confined area with no sides sharing a common fencing with a perimeter fence. It must be capable of confining a dog in a secure and humane manner and approved by the By-Law Enforcement Officer. The enclosure must have a secure top attached to all sides. The sides must either be buried two feet into the ground or sunken into a concrete pad. The gate to the pen or kennel run must be self closing and have a lock.

(g) "hearing"...means the consideration of evidence presented by a "panel" including the following of Schedule A (evidence) as a means of assessing the degree of infraction and whether or not there has been an infraction.

(h) "kennel"...means a place, whether enclosed or not, where dogs are kept for the purposes of breeding, boarding or commercial purposes.

(i) "notice"...means any communication whether in writing or verbal.

(j) "nuisance dog"...means any dog in non compliance with the Township of Mariposa Leash By-Law.

(k) "owner"...of a dog includes a person who possess or harbours a dog, and where the owner is a minor, the person responsible for the custody of the minor.(Municipal Act, Sec.210, 6a {a} )

(l) "panel"...means three persons selected by the Township of Mariposa By-Law Enforcement Office in sequence from a list of qualified individuals - with at least one person familiar where possible with the particular breed type in question - who are knowledgeable about dog behaviour, including but not limited to Veterinarians, dog obedience trainers, dog handlers, and dog breeders. The Township of Mariposa By-Law Enforcement Officer shall establish, control and maintain this list. The assistance of other organizations may be solicited in establishing and compiling the list. In no case may the By-Law enforcement Officers be allowed to be included on this list.
MUNICIPAL ACT----SECTION 210 6 (C) ????

(m) "pure-bred"...means
(1) registered or eligible for registration in the register of the Canadian Kennel Club, Incorporated, or,
(2) of a class designated from time to time as pure bred in the regulations pursuant to the Dog Licensing and Livestock and Poultry protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 123.

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:03 PM
(n) "potentially dangerous dog"...means
(1) any dog that without provocation and while at "large" approaches in an obviously and distinctly threatening manner, any person, or,
(2) any dog which attacks and injures another domestic animal without provocation,
(3) any dog which is allowed to injure or kill wildlife
(4) any abused dog not withstanding clause n) 2)

(o) "Township"...means the Corporation of the Township of Mariposa.

(p) "vicious dog"...means
(1) any dog that inflicts injury by biting or by attacking upon a human being
(2) any dog owned or harboured primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting or any dog trained for dog fighting.
(i) in the instance that serious injury is inflicted on a Human Being under the criterion of either p) (1) or p) 2) then this instance is to be reviewed by a "hearing" by a "panel" in order that it be determined if the action on the part of the dog was warranted and normal behaviour in light of individual circumstances of the event, with consideration for; DOG OWNERS LIABILITY ACT-[65,400] FINES $5000.00 [65,050] AND SECTION [65,300]?????
(a) no dog is arbitrarily considered "vicious" for inflicting injury or damage on a person committing a wilful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog, or teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or committing or attempting to commit a crime.
In the same context no dog will be arbitrarily be considered "potentially dangerous" for inflicting injury or damage on a domestic animal that was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog.
(b) no dog is considered "vicious" for taking action to defend or protect the owner or other person from an attack or assault by another person or animal.
(c) no dog is arbitrarily considered "vicious" or "potentially dangerous" if it is protecting or defending (erroneously or otherwise) its young or other animal. The owner will however be held responsible and correspondingly charged if by negligence or by choice he allows innocent persons or animals to be injured by a dog known to be in the situation where it would feel compelled to protect its young or other animals. It is the responsibility of the owner to be knowledgeable of his dogs idiocincracies.

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:03 PM
The fine will be a minimum of $50.00 to a maximum of $500.00

Infractions will be decided by the By-Law Enforcement Officer unless by his/her choice he/she wishes a "hearing" by a "panel".




REGULATIONS

2. (a) Unless otherwise provided in this By-Law, the "owner" of every dog in the Township of Mariposa shall before the 31st day of March in each year cause the same to be registered and licensed either at the office of the Clerk of the Township of Mariposa, at Oakwood, or, with Dog Control Officer, and shall cause any dog so registered and licensed to wear upon its neck a collar to which shall be attached a dog tag issued by the Township for the current year.

(b) Each dog tag shall bear a serial number and the year of issue and a record shall be kept in the Township office showing the serial number of all issued tags and the name and address of the "owner" in each case.

(c) If a tag is lost or misplaced for any reason, the "owner" shall make application for, and upon payment of a fee of $.0.25, shall be entitled to a replacement tag.

(d) Every license shall be for the calendar year in which it was issued and shall expire on the 31st day of December of the year in which it was issued.

(e) This section shall not apply to a dog found within the Township of Mariposa and properly licensed for the current year by another Municipality.

3. (a) Upon procuring a license tag in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, a person so applying shall pay a license fee as follows: MUNICIPAL ACT 210 6d AND THE DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT CHAPTER 123 PART 1 2(1)
i) for a male/female dog - $10.00
ii) for a second male/female - $10.00
iii) for each additional dof male/female - $10.00

(b) The owner of a "kennel" of "pure bred dogs" may apply for a special license which will include all pure bred dogs within the "kennel". This license shall be called a Kennel License and can only be issued to said persons if they are currently members of and in good standing with the C.K.C.--DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT SEC. 123 3.

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:05 PM
(C) The Owner of a kennel of purebred dogs registered in the Register of The Canadian Kennel Club, shall apply for all pure bred dogs within the Kennel and such license shall be regulated as follows:
i) The annual fee for a kennel license shall be $25.00 payable to the Clerk of the Corporation, or to the Dog Control Officer, and the owner shall not be liable to pay any further license fee in respect of such purebred dogs while they remain in the kennel.


ii) Before licensing any such kennel, the Township may require the owner thereof to produce evidence satisfactory to it that the kennel is being or shall be operated, as the case may be, within acceptable health standards.
DOG LICENSING AND LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT 123 3

4. (a) No person shall allow a dog to run at large in the Township of Mariposa.--MUNICIPAL ACT SEC. 210 6 (f)

(b) Any dog running at large contrary to the provisions of this By-Law may be seized, inpounded, killed or otherwise disposed of by such person as may be duly authorized to so do as hereinafter provided, namely,
i) it shall be the duty of the "Dog Control Officer" to capture any dog running at large contrary to the provisions of this By-Law and to impound or destroy such dog. DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT CHAPTER 123 SEC 9
ii) the "owner" of any dog or dogs so seized or impounded and which bear a dog tag for the current year, may be permitted to redeem the dog or dogs within four days from the time of notice of seizure by paying to the Clerk of the Township the sum as provided in the schedule of fees. Schedul e B.

(c) All dogs impounded under the provisions of this By-Law and which are not redeemed within four days from notice of such impounding may be sold or destroyed.

(d) Any person shall be entitled to take charge of any dog found running at large but shall forthwith deliver the dog to an "Dog Control Officer", unharmed only.

(e) For the purpose of this section, notice may be given verbally by the "Dog Control Officer" to the "owner' or "owners" in question.

5. (a) Where a dog running "at large" appears to be of a vicious nature or has caused damage to property, any person authorized to seize a dog running "at large" contrary to provisions of this By-Law, may immediately kill such dog.

(b) No damage or compensation shall be recovered or recoverable on account of the disposition or destruction of any dog persuant to this By-Law or any Act of the Legislation.

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:05 PM
6. Every "owner" of a dog shall have the dog innoculated with a rabies vaccine at least once every twelve (12) months, and shall produce evidence of such innoculation to any "Dog Control Officer" on demand, or such innoculations will be deemed non existent.

7. No "owner" shall allow his dog or dogs to become a nuisance by howling or barking excessively. Any person so aggrieved by the howling or barking of a dog or dogs may appear before a Justice of the Peace and swear an information charging the Owner with a breach of this Section. Municipal Act 210/132

8. Any person who owns or harbours a dog shall remove forthwith excrement left by the dog anywhere in the Township.

9. (a) No person may own any dog for the purpose of fighting, or train, torment, badger, bait or use any dog for the purpose of causing or encouraging that dog to engage in unprovoked attacks upon human beings or domestic animals, nor may any person participate in, promote, or allow property the person owns to be used for dog fighting. Fines for infractions of this clause will be from $500.00 to $2000.00 and be decided by the Courts.

(b) Any person found guilty of deliberately teasing a dog and causing aggressive, anti-social behaviour in the dog without the owner's knowledgee and consent will be fined $50.00 for the first offence and $75.00 for the second offence. In the case of minors the fine will be the responsibility of the parent or guardian. This penalty will be levied against any individual deliberately harrassing by gesture, physical abuse, voice, or by any other means which results in anti-social behaviour of any dog without the "owners" consent.

10. No person may posses with intent to sell, or offer for sale, breed or buy or attempt to buy within the limits of the Township of Mariposa, any dog determined to be "vicious" under definition of clause p) (1) and p) (2), of this By-Law and determined by a "hearing" or by the Court.

11. In the event that the "Dog Control Officer" has probable cause to believe that a dog is vicious, he/she may convene a "hearing" to determine whether the dog in question should be declared "vicious". The "Dog Control Officer" shall notify the owner that a "hearing" will be held, at which time the owner of the dog may present evidence why the dog should not be declared "vicious". The "hearing" shall be held between five and ten days after the "owner" is given notice. MUNICIPAL ACT SEC 210 (1)

12. After the "hearing" the "owner" of the dog and the "Dog Control Officer" shall be notified in writing of the determination of the "panel". If the determination is made that the dog is "vicious" the "owner" shall comply with the provisions of the By-Law in accordance with a schedule established by the "Dog Control Officer", but in no case more than thirty days subsequent to the date of the determination. If the "owner" contests the determination, the "owner" may, within five days of such determination bring a petition in the County Court, requesting that the court conduct it's own hearing on whether the dog should be declared "vicious". After service of notice to the "Dog Control Officer", the court shall conduct a hearing De novo and make its own determination. If the court rules the dog to be "vicious" the court may establish a schedule to ensure compliance with this By-Law, But in no case more than thirty days subsequent to the Court's determination. The court may decide all issues for or against the "owner" of the dog whether or not the "owner" appears at the "hearing". MUNICIPAL ACT SEC 210 (1) ???

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:06 PM
13. In the event that the "Dog Control Officer" has probable cause to believe that the dog in question is vicious and may pose a threat or serious harm to persons or other domestic animals, then the "Dog Control Officer" may sieze and impound the dog pending the aforesaid "hearing". Subject to the approval of the "Dog Control Officer" the dog may be impounded in a facility agreeable to the "owner". If the dog is found to be "vicious" the "owner" of the said dog shall be liable to the "Township" wherein the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping the dog.
The "Dog Control Officer" may establish a schedule of payment of these costs. The "owner" shall incur the expense of impounding the dog in a facility other than the "Township" pound whether the dog is found "vicious" or not.

14. Any dog shall be deemed "potentially dangerous" if it without provocation kills, wounds, or assists in killing or wounding any domestic animal or any wildlife while off the property of the "owner". The "owner" of the dog shall be held responsible and shall be held in noncompliance with this By-Law and fined $100.00 and shall reimburse the owner of the animal attacked for replacement of the attacked animal and/or veterinary expenses. In addition the "Dog Control Officer" is empowered to immediately sieze and impound (if the "owner" is not present) the dog and after expiration of ten days waiting period following the impoundment, to humanely euthanize the "potentially dangerous" dog.

15. Any dog that without provocation (with consideration to clause n)(1),(2),and (3)) and while "at large" approaches a person or animal under control of a person (leashed) in an obviously and distinctly threatening manner shall be deemed "potentially dangerous". The "owner" of the "potentially dangerous" dog shall be liable for a fine of $50.00 for the first offence and $100.00 for subsequent offences of the above nature.

16.a) Any "abused" dog shall be deemed "potentially dangerous". The "owner" of an "abused" dog who has allowed, aided in or has been the cause of the dog's becoming "abused" will be fined a minimum of $100.00 to a maximum of $1000.00 and be restricted from owning a dog for from a minimun of two years to a maximum of total restriction of ownership of a dog within the limits of the Township of Mariposa for as long as the individual resides in the "Township". The "Dog Control Officer" is empowered to immediately sieze and impound the dog if in his opinion it is deemed necessary.

b) Upon confirmation of the guilt of the "owner" either by acceptance of the opinion of the "Dog Control Officer" or by "hearing", the dog may be resold, handed over to the local Humane Society, placed in a home acceptable to the "Dog Control Officer", or humanely euthanized. If it is decided that the dog is not "abused" then the dog will be returned to it's "owner" with a warning and a clarification of the "Township" By-Law recited to the "owner".

c) In the case that the animal is relocated to a new home, the status of the dog at the discretion of the "Dog Control Officer" and not withstanding clause n)2) may be re evaluated from "potentially dangerous" to "nuisance" dog.



17. The "owners" of dogs deemed to be "potentially dangerous" by the "Dog Control Officer" may request a "hearing" to establish the status of the dog. The decision of the "hearing" will be binding. The "owner" of the dog will give to the "Township" a deposit of $50.00 in the instance that he/she desires a "hearing" to determine the status of the "potentially dangerous" dog. The deposit will be refunded if the "panel" at the "hearing" find infavor of the "owner". The request for a "hearing" must be made within two working days of the original decision of the "Dog Control Officer". The "hearing" shall be conducted in from five to ten days after the date of the request.

18.a) All dogs designated to be "potentially dangerous" shall be required to be kept in the residence of the "owner" or in an "enclosure" when the "owner" of the "potentially dangerous" dog is not at the residence where the said dog is being kept. Any dog designated as being "potentially dangerous" will not be allowed off leash within the "Township" limits unless within an adequately fenced portion of the "owner's" property or on property adequately fenced belonging to a consenting individual. DOG OWNERS LIABILITY ACT---[65040, 65050]

b) If the "owner" of a determined "potentially dangerous" dog fails to either provide proof or assurance satisfactory to the "Dog Control Officer" that the dog will now be confined and restrained in compliance with the provisions of this By-Law, or fails to claim the dog from the Pound chosen by the "Township", if it has been previously impounded, and if the dog cannot be adopted by someone providing assurance that it will be kept confined and restrained as specified in this By-Law then the dog may be humanely euthanized after ten days.

c) Any person/"owner" violating the terms of the clause shall be punished upon first offence by a fine of $100.00. The fine will be subsequently increased by $100.00 for each repeat offence a maximum of $500.00 and withdrawl of the "owner's" licence to own a dog for two years.

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:06 PM
19. a) Any dog that without provocation, considering clauses n)1),2),3), causes injury by biting or by serious attack to a human being shall be subject to the procedures in clauses 11 and 12, declared vicious.

b) Upon such an attack or assault the "Dog Control Officer" is empowered to sieze and impound the alledged "vicious" dog if the conduct ot the "owner" or the dog cause in his opinion the necessity of the action to protect the public.

c) The "owner" may designate a consenting kennel or veterinary clinic as an alternative to "Township" facilities for confinement. All kenneling in facilities other than that of the "Township" will be payable by the "owner" of the dog.

20.a) A dog causing undue public concern for safety by lunging fiercely and forcefully against a fenced enclosure within which is kept shall be investigated and dealt with by the "Dog Control Officer".





b) Complaints arising from such a situation will give the "Dog Control Officer" the right to inspect the premises in which the dog is kept. If there is boubt in the mind of the "Dog Control Officer" that the dog is not securely confined then he may require the "owner" to either reinforce the perimeter fence or construct the perimeter fence of a material thru which the dog cannot see. The "owner" may construct an adequate kennel run with proper shelter from the elements and the dog will be required to be confined when the owner is not home or cannot supervise his/her dog.

21. Dogs kept as compound dogs to gaurd property in the absence of any resposible handler or "owner";

a) The "owner" or individual hiring the services of such a dog will pay a licence fee of $100.00 per year, per dog.

b) The fenced perimeter of the area in which the dog or dogs serve as compound guard dogs will be inspected by the "Dog Control Officer" and must pass his inspection before and guard dog may be turned loose unsupervised.

c) In the event that a dog escapes from the enclosure the individual hiring the services of the dog will be liable to a fine of from $50.00 to $500.00

d) The fine will be levied by the "By-Law Enforcement Officer".

e) In the event that the services of such a dog are required for less than one year then the licence will be issued for the partial estimated year always as long or longer than required never less.

22. In the case that a dog declared "vicious" is not euthanized:
If it is concluded that the dog declared "vicious" can be retrained and socialized and that the bite or injury from the attack was the result of improper or negligent training, handling or maintenance, the dog licence to the "owner" shall be reissued with conditions and restrictions imposed for the training, socialization, handling and maintenance of the dog to protect the public. It must be properly concluded that the "owner" is able and willing to properly carry out these restrictions and conditions and that a similar incident is not likely to occur in the future. Prior to the reissuance of a permanent licence, the "owner" of the dog shall show proof that he/she and the dog have succeessfully completed a training course and show proof of an "enclosure" where the "vicious" dog must be kept is outside the residence when the "owner" or custodian is not physically present with the dog when the dog is on the "owner's" property.

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:07 PM
Non compliance will result in a fine of $200.00 and repeated infractions will result in impoundment of the dog, euthanization of the dog, and the revoking of the "owner's" right to acquire a dog licence for from two years to a permanent ban. The "Dog Control Officer" will proved the owner a temporary signed approval of custody while the owner and dog are completing required conditions. DOG OWNERS LIABILITY ACT [65040], 2(b) PENALTY [65050] (4) $5000.00

23. Identification of a "vicious" dog:
Any dog determined to be "vicious" and not euthanized will be required to be tattooed by a qualified veterinarian at the "owner's" expense, with a distinctive number (so as not to be confused with other I.D. tattoos) in the right ear.
A new licence will be issued to the "owner" and it will display this distinctive tattoo number. The "Township" will keep a list of all such licences for easy referencing.
Any person whose dog has been determined to be "vicious" and whose right to obtain a licence has been revoked by the "panel" shall not own, possess, control, or be in charge of a dog for a period of from three years to a perminent ban dependent upon the recommendations of the "panel". MUNICIPAL ACT SEC.210 4(a) REFERED TO BY 4(d)

24. In the event that a human death is the direct result of an attack by a dog or dogs, or in the case that very severe injuries are sustained, the "Dog Control Officer" will recommend that the "owner" be charged with criminal responsibilty and that the case be dealt with in a criminal court of law.

25. None of the "panel" or the "Township" or their staff in animal control or the elected officials, may be held resposible if a dog determined to be "potentially dangerous" or "vicious" should at a later date cause and injury to a human or to a dometicated animal either because of escape from and "enclosure" or in any other circumstances. The "owner" of said dog must be held responsible for the actions of his/her dog.

26. In the event that any Court should determine that any section of this By-Law is invalid or ultra vires, such section, if the context permits shall be severable and the remainder of the By-Law shall continue in full force and effect.

27. By-law No. 89-55 of the Township and any amending By-law or By-Laws are hereby rescinded.

LavenderRott
October 3rd, 2004, 11:16 PM
THERE IS A GOOD VISCIOUS DOG LAW.

A law where ALL dogs and ALL dog owners are treated EQUALLY under the law.

You know, I really don't mind a good debate until people start calling people names.

The most famous pair of Search and Rescue dogs in the United States are a pair of Pit Bulls. If my child was missing, those are the dogs I would want looking for him. Rottweilers are also used in Search and Rescue work all across North America. There were a couple in New York when the Twin Towers fell. It sure would be horrid if these fine examples of their breed where punished because some drug dealer wanted the biggest meanest dog they could find to guard their drugs.

I find it very sad when people are presented with the facts and still can be so blind. And yes, these facts and so many more that I haven't posted have been given to Mr. Bryant. I doubt that he has even bothered to read them or talk to anyone who has a differing opinion. That would not fit into his master scheme.

heeler's rock!
October 3rd, 2004, 11:29 PM
I agree LR. Calling people names is not neccessary, and I do appologize to those, other than BTPB, that were offended by my last few posts. I controlled my emotions better on my last post as I have decided to be the bigger person and not let BTPB get to me. I just get very emotional when we are talking about thousands of innocent pits being put to sleep or homeless because of a lack of understanding on both the media and the government. There is only so much support behind BSL because of a few misinformed individuals, that then spread that misinformation to the masses.

Spurby
October 4th, 2004, 02:16 AM
What a proposed pitbull ban/dangerous dog legislation in Ontario should do:

-> Outright ban on all *new* pitbull and rott puppies/breeding/sale/purchase.

-> Ban pitbulls/rotts from densely populated areas.

-> Equate crime of the dog as being a crime of the owner and deal accordingly, levying massive fines and imprisonment.

-> Deal with existing pitbull/rott population. This is the most contentious issue,
---> Euthanise those currently in shelters. Do not promote further adoption.
---> For those people who currently own pitbulls/rotts and are obviously deeply attached to their dogs, a delicate approach is needed...which both prevents another pitbull/rott bite but also takes into consideration the fact that these dogs are probably family members now, and you just can't take them away for euthanization.
On this point, I am not sure what will work, but muzzling and short leashes aren't likely to be much effective. A combination of things are probably required, including substantial liability coverage requirements.


What could be the results of such a ban :

-> Gradually eliminate pitbull and rott population in Ontario. It took Britain 10-15 years to do that.

-> Pitbull attacks would and should be eliminated. Keeps the govt and the vast majority of the public happy and safe (atleast from pitbulls). Mission accomplished for the McGuinty government. If pitbull attacks still continue after such a law takes effect, the govt would be pushed to ban all pitbulls in sight (euthanize them 'all).

-> A lot of pitbulls would be saved from a lot of agony, especially those in rescue situations/shelters. Pitbull is also probably the most abused breed.

From what I understand, most people get pitbulls/rotts precisely because they are amongst the most powerful and aggressive dogs available; though some get them from shelters,etc...which isn't really a bad thing.

However, I am yet to come across a single responsible pitbull owner.

So now you have added Rottweilers to your ideal ban? how nice. :rolleyes: Better keep that list handy, because other breeds will surely be added if BSL passes.

Your last sentence says it all, your complete and utter ignorance to the American pit bull terrier. You have never even met one, one of the many of thousands owned and loved by RESPONSIBLE people, yet, you want them all killed because of your fear of something you do not know, nor understand, or even met.

Let me guess, your research on the breed/BSL is googled and through biased media reports? Huh, nice work. Sad to see it, but i have come to the understanding that many people in life will remain happliy ignorant to various things, hey, as long as you "feel" safe from the big bad pit bull, thats all that matters, right? I am sure you will sleep soundly at night, knowing if BSL is passed, Ontario is saved.

Tell me, what would you say to the child who's face just received 100 stitches from a Lab? or Dalmation? Or Mutt? Why didn't the BSL save them??? I'll give you an answer, they were too busy saving us by killing all the pit bulls, spending and wasting money by doing so, and not spending the time and energy where it is needed, enforcing exsisting by-laws, and creating tough new ones. Too bad for the future kids/people that will get attacked by other breeds, no one cares about them if it wasn't a pit bull :(

moontamara
October 4th, 2004, 05:12 AM
Dinah, I don't think anyone's worried about whether or not you've offended BTPB -- it's how this forum is going to look to anyone browsing through it, and the fact that it degrades your side of the argument. I understand that it a very emotional issue for you guys (I'm kind of outside of it here in Korea), so perhaps it's harder than it sounds. I do understand your point of view, and I want others to understand it too. If someone called me a moron there is absolutely NO WAY I would consider anything they had to tell me from that point on.

moontamara
October 4th, 2004, 05:55 AM
moontamara, others have posted facts and statistics about pitbulls without insulting BTPB and he/she has ignored it all anyway. Why? Because people like BTPB ARE morons, plain and simple.

Yeah, I know you're right. BTPB didn't come here with even a remotely open mind. But what if someone is just reading through this discussion without having made up his/her mind? That's all I'm saying.

But since I'm not emotionally involved, perhaps it isn't my business to comment at all. I'm sure if poodles were about to be banned and it would affect me and my little guy, I'd probably be name calling too!

moontamara
October 4th, 2004, 09:03 AM
Chico, is there a link there? All I'm seeing is some guy's picture, with nothing to click on :confused:

moontamara
October 4th, 2004, 09:03 AM
Uhh, where did Chico's post go? I must be losing it...???? :confused: :confused: :confused:

chico2
October 4th, 2004, 09:18 AM
There is a"letter to the editor"in the T Star this morning from the owner of a Staffordshire Terrier,titled"the sweetest dog I've ever known"...
They gave him and his brindle"Pit-Bull"almost half a page,including a picture....we need more of those wonderful pitties and responsible owners in the papers!!
It's at www.TheStar.com under the heading"letters"..

moontamara
October 4th, 2004, 09:24 AM
Chico, the link doesn't get me to the story you're talking about -- unless it's hidden on that page -- but I can't find it! Sorry!

Sneaky2006
October 4th, 2004, 09:24 AM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1096841409058&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895

chico2
October 4th, 2004, 09:45 AM
No Tamara you are all there :D I deleted it,got the wrong file :D :D

mastifflover
October 4th, 2004, 10:09 AM
There was something like this mentioned with the young girl who was mauled by her Grandmother's Neopolitan mastiff. (Another illegal kennel. This one had a tiger on the premises at one time.) The girl went in to pet a litter of puppies, & the mother dog turned on her. Later the child's mother claimed that the dogs & situation had been mis-represented to her, even though she supported her mother's breeding kennel in the beginning.
First of get your facts straight they were Dogue De Bordeaux's. She entered the kennels and it was the males who attacked her and I think it was awful but at least try and get the story straight. By the way the CMA Canadian Mossler Association had a benefit for her and raised a large amount of money. They are responsible owners and breeders and do not condone these types of things but felt responsible to help out. Since this is a Mossler breed.
Second of all Einstein if they ban Pit Bulls then these loosers who have created this problem by training their dogs to attack and be aggressive will move on to a dog like the Bordeau who weigh at least twice what a pit weighs and will do much more damage to a person if they attack. So banning Pit Bulls would be assinine to say the least. As you can see all the criminals lining up to register their guns, just like the criminals who own Pits they will definitely abide by the laws.
Yes that story about the Pomerainian is true it killed a new born. I was bitten by a small dog and the dog was not trained or socialized and my 160 pound dog did not go after this stupid rat oh and by the way my dog is one of those vicious breeds English Mastiff and my previous dog was a Neapolitan so I take exception to the fact that you blame a breed for an attack and dont even know what kind of dog it was. By the way Dogues are small compared to Neos who can weigh anywhere from 150 -230 pounds now dont you want the guys who train Pits to be aggressive to get one of these guys. Before you start shooting your mouth off like the Michael Bryant (I don't know the facts) get your facts first. If you are going to argue a point at least try to sound like you know what you are talking about.

poohbear123
October 4th, 2004, 10:19 AM
I do not own a dog at present time but as a parent I would be concerned for my childrens safety...How would you feel if your child was killed or mauled by one of these dogs? If these dogs are known for there aggressive behavior then why would anyone want to own them? What was the original purpose of a pitbull? And if it was bred as a fighting dog then all pits would have these aggressive genes in them and you are taking a chance when you own one. Maybe there shouldn't be a bred ban but one on owners who are irresponsible and can not manage a dog of this kind. I believe most of blame should be placed on the owners not the dogs. Just my two cents worth!

mastifflover
October 4th, 2004, 10:32 AM
You are right the owners are the ones that need to be held accountable. Pit Bulls and Staffordshire Terriers in England used to be called nanny dogs because they watched the children and protected them. I understand your concerns about your kids.

BANTHEPITBULL
October 4th, 2004, 10:43 AM
Once again, YOUR POST MAKES NO SENSE!!
We have said on this thread, as well as others, that the ban in Kitchener did not work, so why are you assuming it did? Bans have failed EVERYWHERE!!! You did read this thread before responding didn't you? Otherwise you'd look pretty ignorant! Oh wait, maybe you didn't because you do look pretty ignorant!! :D

The ban worked in Kitchener, and that is not a figment of my imagination. Try contacting the Mayor of Kitchener and ask him whether the ban worked or not..

You are believing things to be true which you want to believe.....continue believing the general statement that bans don't work...like I care :D :D

And The Toronto Star recently had an editorial titled "Ban the pitbull"...maybe they are morons too, and so is the govt, etc etc

sammiec
October 4th, 2004, 10:53 AM
I think that only owners and victims should be able to "dictate" what happens to this breed. I saw on the news that the 19 year old that was attacked by the 2 pit bulls last week is not willing to charge the owner, even though his mother insisted.
I bet there would be a big difference in the polls of banning, muzzling etc. if people that have had no interaction with these animals were not to participate... all the media hype and discrimination would be weeded out and there might be a more honest answer to what should be done.

sammiec
October 4th, 2004, 11:00 AM
Wow, you're intellegent. I bet you believe everything that you read too don't you?
Have you thought that many politicians and public people don't tell the general public everything that happens. Of course they would tell you that the ban worked!!! I bet they have no stats or figures on how many pit bulls still exist within the city limits, nor do they still track the number of bites that have happened since the ban. There are a number of things that they don't want you to know... but you seem to believe that they tell you everything.
I bet the mayor would love telephone calls from eveyone, and I bet if the ban wasn't working that he would share that information with just anyone... don't you think that they would have ALOT of questions to answer if they came out and said, "well, now that you ask, there's been no change in the number fo attacks by pit bulls and we haven't been able to enforce the ban since it came in to effect"... that would make for excellent re-election and wonderful publicity.


The ban worked in Kitchener, and that is not a figment of my imagination. Try contacting the Mayor of Kitchener and ask him whether the ban worked or not..

You are believing things to be true which you want to believe.....continue believing the general statement that bans don't work...like I care :D :D

And The Toronto Star recently had an editorial titled "Ban the pitbull"...maybe they are morons too, and so is the govt, etc etc

mastifflover
October 4th, 2004, 11:03 AM
We already know the government is a bunch of morons. What you believe they really give a sh** the only reason they are all over this is because it has become a media frenzy, otherwise like everything else it would be ignored but their is a lot of publicity to be garnered by these lazy politians. That is why they care. Oh by the way if you ban a breed their will be less bites but if you notice bites by all other breeds have gone up, this tells me the only bites that were reported while they were implementing the ban is bites by pits, nothing else counted. There goes the government making the statistics fit their agenda.

mastifflover
October 4th, 2004, 11:24 AM
BAN THE PIT BULL do you work in government because you have not answered or tried to clear up any of the misinformation you posted. Also you back Michael Bryant who is almost as misinformed as yourself. Do you own a dog and what breed? You seem to ignore any post that clears up your misinformation.

sammiec
October 4th, 2004, 11:27 AM
Can you just imagine if this person was working for the government?!?! What a shame that would be. I bet they would be forever greatful to a member for coming on a PETS forum and bashing animals and saying such rude and hateful things. Hey, maybe this is Mr. Bryant himself.... :rolleyes:

BAN THE PIT BULL do you work in government because you have not answered or tried to clear up any of the misinformation you posted. Also you back Michael Bryant wo=ho is almost as misinformed as yourself. Do you own a dog and what breed? You seem to ignore any post that clears up your misinformation.

mastifflover
October 4th, 2004, 11:30 AM
I would not find that in the least bit shocking. But the attitude and lack of information is so infuriating. Sounds like the misinformed politians

LavenderRott
October 4th, 2004, 11:33 AM
I do not own a dog at present time but as a parent I would be concerned for my childrens safety...How would you feel if your child was killed or mauled by one of these dogs? If these dogs are known for there aggressive behavior then why would anyone want to own them? What was the original purpose of a pitbull? And if it was bred as a fighting dog then all pits would have these aggressive genes in them and you are taking a chance when you own one. Maybe there shouldn't be a bred ban but one on owners who are irresponsible and can not manage a dog of this kind. I believe most of blame should be placed on the owners not the dogs. Just my two cents worth!

I got Chase about 6 months before my son was born. As a young toddler, he did everything to her that ever toddler does to a dog. He even stood on her head once to put his cup on the table because he couldn't reach. Not so much as a blink from the dog. At 6, he is very dog savvy, thanks to his mother and his two sisters. I always keep an eye on him when we are around strange dogs of any breed.

In August, I took my children to a fund raiser for rottweiler rescue. There were about 25 dogs there. Some that I had met before, more that I had not. Not one dog looked cross eyed at any of the children there.

On that same token, my son was bit by a chihuahua mix this summer. He was in the neighbor's house removing his shoes. When my son and I discussed the bite, he told me that he made sure not to move to fast and that he was just standing by the door, taking off his shoes. Needless to say, my son is not allowed to go into that house anymore.

Last week, that same dog got loose and attacked my beagle mix.

LavenderRott
October 4th, 2004, 11:49 AM
"Back in the old days" dogs that were raised as fighting dogs were not allowed to show human aggression. Dogs that were aggressive towards humans were usually put down and NEVER bred. Yes, they were supposed to be dog aggressive. The theory being, in the past, that the handler had to be able to handle the dog, therefor, the dog must not be aggressive towards humans.

Now days, with thugs doing the fighting, it seems that it is a plus if the dog shows some human aggression too. Since fighting dogs are rarely vetted after a fight, the need to be able to handle these dogs is not there.

Lucky Rescue
October 4th, 2004, 12:05 PM
And if it was bred as a fighting dog then all pits would have these aggressive genes in them and you are taking a chance when you own one

Aggressive to other DOGS, not people! Correct pit bull temperament is to be friendly and submissive with ALL people and intolerant and/or aggressive with other dogs to varying degrees, from no aggression to extreme aggression, to other DOGS.

Sandi is correct. Pit bull fights are the only ones that are safe for a person to break up without fear of being bitten.

Pit bulls are one of the worst guard dogs, because they do not guard property or territory, and love all people IF THEY ARE CORRECT. They are also stolen very very often out of their own yards, because they will go with anyone. A pit bull rescue in the U.S. had to get guard dogs, like Filas and Neos, to stop people stealing the pit bulls.

Mastiff/Rott/Ridgeback x Pit bulls will NOT show correct temperament for pit bulls. Many of these mixes are out there, due to scuzzy people who want huge "pit bulls", and no one knows they are mixed and automatically call them pit bulls. A 100lb dog is NOT a pit bull, although it may look like one.

Mixing pit bulls with other breeds is a rotten idea. It hurts both breeds, and the result is seldom good.

mastifflover
October 4th, 2004, 12:19 PM
Bottom line is that any dog can be made aggressive and vicious, it does not matter what size it is. Personally I would rather run into a large dog loose that a small one.

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
October 4th, 2004, 01:15 PM
The ban worked in Kitchener, and that is not a figment of my imagination. Try contacting the Mayor of Kitchener and ask him whether the ban worked or not..

Breed ban sure didn't stop my friend in Kitchener from being mauled -- by a Golden Retriever. She can't even smile properly as a result of this attack; the dog was allowed to run loose and attack a child a night before the attack on her happend. Does she blame the breed? Does she want a ban on these dogs? No. Like any intelligent, logical human she knows what the blame should be placed on. She placed the blame on the idiot who owned the dog; remarkably this same idiot claimed his dog wasn't vicious because it wasn't a Pit Bull :rolleyes: This goes to show you another failure of breed bans; they enourage irresponsible ownership and bad breeding. These people (usually people who support BSL) think if they don't own a BSL-targeted breed, they don't have to be responsible for it.

Get in the real world, please, and DO YOUR RESEARCH ON THE BREED before you keep going on about how "wonderful" BSL is.

Here's some links for proof that Breed Specific Legislation is nothing but a failure. Please take the time to look through them.

http://www.petpeoplesplace.com/Care/Dogs/003/22.htm
http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/BSL.AVMA.html
http://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/failedBSL.htm

This child would've died if BSL was brought into their area . . .

http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/BSL.DIXIE.html

Cactus Flower
October 4th, 2004, 02:07 PM
Ok folks, here's my two cents:

First of all, I'm not here to attack- or defend- anyone. I've read through this entire thread and skipped nothing. I'm trying my best to forget alliances made through being a member of this board and not take sides merely because of that. Please consider my opinion, as I'm trying to be completely objective. I hope I offend no one, but here it is.

Despite some inflammatory language on BOTH SIDES of this argument, I feel that those supporting the bsl ban are causing some irrational responses. We are supposed to welcome people's opinions, whether or not we agree with them. It is true that coming on here and saying "THIS IS UTTER BULLFECES" is not the best way to present your point, but being a public forum, you are going to get varied responses. Some of the pro-ban posts have been, or have become, well-written opinions that just happen to differ with most of ours. They still deserve at least a nod as another valid perspective.

In regards to the child who was sitting in his/her back yard.....
If this had happened to any of you, you'd be posting here about irresponsible owners letting their dogs run loose, and would get a deluge of sympathetic and supportive responses. You'd hear "Yeah, those jerks! We should be safe on our own property, with or without a gate!". And what about people who don't have a fenced in yard, etc? Dogs are not supposed to be running free and unsupervised. The owner of the pit bull is the villian here, NOT the parents of that child. How many of you have let your child play in the yard as you did dishes, watching from the window, etc? I know I have. Attacking the parents of this child was uncalled for, and it ignored the issue of the dog-at-large. Addressing that issue would have meant supporting a point that was made by a poster that everyone was angry at, so it went unheard.

If a dog-at-large came through my gate- open or not- and grabbed my child by its clothing- ON MY PROPERTY- there'd be hell to pay. Period. And I would not accept being blamed for this incident.

I personally do not support BSL, as I agree that many of the irresponsible owners will just move on to corrupting another breed. But I don't automatically think that the pro-BSL are ill-informed idiots for having the opinion they have. Both sides can find statistics to support their case. There are statistics-a-plenty out there.

And acting as though there has NEVER been a case of a "bad" pit bull- WITH A RESPONSIBLE OWNER- attacking unexpectedly, makes the anti-ban folks seem less credible. Unexpected attacks from poorly bred breeds DO happen now and then. Not just with pit bulls, of course- with every breed. But pit bulls certainly are not exempt from this phenomenon.

I would love to see the balance that I am used to seeing from you all return to this thread. I realize that emotion is running high, but you normally are able to get past that and try to respect other views.

LL1
October 4th, 2004, 02:41 PM
So now you want to kill Rottweilers as well as Pitbulls, lovely.





-> Deal with existing pitbull/rott population. This is the most contentious issue,
---> Euthanise those currently in shelters. Do not promote further adoption.
.

You don't get out much do you?





However, I am yet to come across a single responsible pitbull owner.

sammiec
October 4th, 2004, 03:00 PM
However, I am yet to come across a single responsible pitbull owner

This saddens me to read this. What do you classify as a "responsible pit bull owner"? I am very interested. Please enlighten us. I myself have met a few "responsible" pit bull owners. How does a "responsible" pit bull owner differ from a "regular" dog owner?

BANTHEPITBULL
October 4th, 2004, 03:24 PM
Can you just imagine if this person was working for the government?!?! What a shame that would be. I bet they would be forever greatful to a member for coming on a PETS forum and bashing animals and saying such rude and hateful things. Hey, maybe this is Mr. Bryant himself.... :rolleyes:

By advocating banning pitbulls from our society I am not bashing animals as such. Pitbulls don't seem to fit in this society, and thus should be kept out of it....how about in zoos or massive private ranches !! I like tigers and wolves too, and even though some people would like to keep them as pets, they just can't co-exist in the society, and hence are banned as pets !

And I just can't understand why any level-headed person would like to keep a pitbull as a pet...of course you have the freedom and the rights to, but I'm sure most of your neighbors detest you for having dogs like these.

mastifflover
October 4th, 2004, 03:37 PM
In regards to the child who was sitting in his/her back yard..... You are right a parent and child should feel safe on their own property. But I have seen it more times than I care to unsupervised children running into other peoples backyards or on their porches where there are animals. Not all people are good parents and like to blame their lack of parenting on others. The dog is not always at fault. When my dog used to be tormented through the fence by the brat next door I told the parents this kid was going to get bit, they said their kid would not do this to an animal. How would they know the kid was either outside picking on other kids or parked in front of the television. Well eventually the kid got bit luckily not by my dog, and the parents tried to blame the owners which backfired because we had reported this kid to the humane society and the police. Yes innocent kids do get bit but kids also tease animals and then say I didn't do anything. So there is two sides to every story.

Shannon83
October 4th, 2004, 03:41 PM
You really got something against this kind of dog, I mean come on do you think banning it will stop from dog attacks from happening? cause it won't and the only way to stop then from happening is making sure people who can't treat animals right are not allowed to own pets. I was attack by a pit bull when I was 8yrs and nearly had my finger taken off cause the person who owned the dog didn't have sigh saying this dog would attack and there for I put my hand in the fence to get my toy and was attack but I hold nothing against that dog or any other pit bull cause I knew that the life he was living was one you wouldn't wish for anyone to live or go through. don't dam the whole breed just cause of a few people who can't take care of dogs.

sammiec
October 4th, 2004, 03:45 PM
of course you have the freedom and the rights to, but I'm sure most of your neighbors detest you for having dogs like these.

Nope, I wouldn't go as far to say that they detest me for having a pit bull. But as the IRRESPONSIBLE owner I am - or so YOU think :rolleyes: , I would LOVE it if you were my neighbour!

I live in an apartment building with 19 floors. There are 16 units per floor, with an average of 2 people per unit....and there are 2 buildings (the other building has 24 floor). That's roughly 608 people in my building alone! I have only had a problem with 1 resident and visitors to the building....that's pretty good odds I'd say. MANY people know my dog since we are very active in our area. We have walking buddies, kids that play with her outside and parents that allow their child to pet and play with her on a daily basis. We have never once (knock on wood) had a snap, lunge, baring of teeth, or growl out of her since she came home. But I guess as a pit bull owner I coulnd't be responsible enough to train,socialize and enjoy this dog. You would never understand this though. You have your head so far up your uneducated butt that none of this makes sense to you and frankly I bet you didn't even read over the entire post.

Writing4Fun
October 4th, 2004, 03:49 PM
Banthepitbull, I'm wondering why you never seem to respond to the valid and logical points being made.

Please re-read LuckyRescue's comments on the breed standard. You will find your answer there as to why any level-headed person would want to own one of these dogs.

I am still waiting to hear what breed of dog you own.

Mastifflover, there are always two sides to every story, and we could swap good and bad stories until the cows come home, but that will only make this thread even longer and harder to follow. ;)

mastifflover
October 4th, 2004, 03:50 PM
And I just can't understand why any level-headed person would like to keep a pitbull as a pet...of course you have the freedom and the rights to, but I'm sure most of your neighbors detest you for having dogs like these.

It is obvious that most of the stuff you are writing is off the top of your head or garbage the media is printing. If you took the pick the pit bull test I bet you would fail. You still have not stated what kind of dog you have if you do have one.
Well Sammiec bet you glad this closed minded person is not your next door neighbour.

Lucky Rescue
October 4th, 2004, 04:00 PM
Since BTPB refuses to answer any questions concerning his/her dog, or provide any details about the supposed "attack" on the child, OR to take into consideration or respond to any facts concerning breed traits or BSL, but merely continues to spout media hype further discussion is futile. Thread locked.

heeler's rock!
October 4th, 2004, 06:47 PM
Since Lucky was kind enough to open this thread again, I am making a conscious effort to ignore ignorant, close minded individuals on here, and only discuss anti-BSL issues. Anybody with pro-BSL views is more than welcome to post their thoughts here, but please, do your research, and be considerate. Many of the members here own pits and they are family members, so please try and use tact when posting. We are all trying to come up with solutions to BSL and anyone with valid pro-BSL facts is more than welcome here. If you are unsure of your stance on this matter, we are all willing to answer any questions you may have.

BTPB, you keep ignoring the facts we present to you and you fail to answer our questions about your own so-called experiences with pits. Therefore, I am not willing to read anymore of your garbage. I hope others will do the same and just ignore you completely in hopes that you will go away as you have no place among animal lovers.

BANTHEPITBULL
October 5th, 2004, 12:30 AM
Since BTPB refuses to answer any questions concerning his/her dog, or provide any details about the supposed "attack" on the child, OR to take into consideration or respond to any facts concerning breed traits or BSL, but merely continues to spout media hype further discussion is futile. Thread locked.

-> don't intend to give out any personal info, including info about my dog...as I intend to be active in supporting the BSL...simply not in my interest and neither relevant to the discussion. An off-leash pitbull did lunge towards my dog, but I was lucky enough to pick him up and run away. the breed of my dog is simply irrelevant.

-> the 'supposed attack', well, if an adult pitbull is on the loose and enters someone else's backyard and grabs a child's jacket in it's jaws.....that is an attack for me- left, right and center.

-> have also been threatened by some kid pointing 2 pitbulls at me; have heard reports of seniors being forced to walk fast by group of thugs with pitbulls in the downtown Toronto area. Laugh your heart out.

-> I am yet to come across a single person who opposes a ban on pitbulls (and i've talked to a lot of people about it..including vets), offline of course.

-> I have based my opinion on supporting BSL based on : personal experience, numerous stories in media since July 2004 about people being almost killed and other small pets being mauled and killed by pitbulls, the fact that pitbulls are banned in many communities and countries around the world.

-> BSL doesn't necessarily mean killing all pitbulls in sight, however that would be a last option for the govt if the alarming rise in serious pitbull attacks continues. McGuinty is on record saying that simply won't happen. For me, BSL is a confirmation that pitbulls aren't fitting in the society and need to be gradually phased out- with emphasis being on absolutely banning breeding/sale/purchase of puppies and on preventing another serious attack by existing pitbulls. Trust me, even if it will take millions of dollars the govt would still do it, coz there is enough public outrage on the issue. What many of you so-called pet lovers don't realise is that pitbull is also the most abused and abandoned breed, and controlling their population from the outset is a more humane thing to do.

-> You cannot prove otherwise by referring me to some website with some stats. The only way that will happen is when my personal experience changes and when I stop seeing people with torn faces on the cover of newspapers.

BANTHEPITBULL
October 5th, 2004, 12:49 AM
This saddens me to read this. What do you classify as a "responsible pit bull owner"? I am very interested. Please enlighten us. I myself have met a few "responsible" pit bull owners. How does a "responsible" pit bull owner differ from a "regular" dog owner?

"responsible pitbull owner":

(all references are to an adult, full-sized pitbull)

-> don't leave unattended, in public.

-> don't let kids walk it.

-> if you've got 2 pitbulls, don't walk both of them at the same time.

-> don't let your dog run off-leash, unless it's a park designated as such.

-> understand the fact that many people are probably concerned after reading about so many serious attacks by pitbulls in the newspapers..so just be SENSIBLE, don't try and make your dog look as mean as possible with one of those bad-ass collars.

-> spread the word, because you don't want few idiots to ruin the party for you

-> report offenders to the authorities.

-> maybe form some group...promote responsible pitbull ownership, try and be self-regulating

moontamara
October 5th, 2004, 01:54 AM
That post actually seemed about right to me -- however, I'm 100% sure that the regulars on this board who own pit bulls fit that description perfectly. I honestly think that BTPB doesn't realize he's not dealing with the stereotypical pit bull owner here. BTPB, have you read any other threads on this board? I hope you'll consider searching through, and seeing that the people you're talking to here are probably some of the most responsible dog owners you'll ever know.

chico2
October 5th, 2004, 08:56 AM
BTPB,I agree with your second post,as do all pit-bull owners here,I am sure..but those guidelines would include just about any dogs.
My son has a little JR,he lets her loose in dog-parks all the time and he is very proud of his little dog nipping at larger dogs,boy,is she brave!!(his attitude,not mine!!)I am just hoping that she will not one day pay the price for my sons stupidity :mad:

LavenderRott
October 5th, 2004, 09:00 AM
-> have also been threatened by some kid pointing 2 pitbulls at me; have heard reports of seniors being forced to walk fast by group of thugs with pitbulls in the downtown Toronto area. Laugh your heart out.

Don't you think something should be done about the thug holding the leash? Don't you think if they ban pit bulls those thugs will go out and get a different type of dog or a gun?

-> I have based my opinion on supporting BSL based on : personal experience, numerous stories in media since July 2004 about people being almost killed and other small pets being mauled and killed by pitbulls, the fact that pitbulls are banned in many communities and countries around the world.

Why is it you are so willing to believe the media? Many times the "pit bulls" in the stories are misidentified and the true breed of the dog is determined later. You sure don't see the press correcting those mistakes on page one, do you.

You know what, I am tired of trying to teach you anything. I have a screaming headache and you are making it much worse.

I live in a small community and if I based all of my decisions on the things that happen in my little community, I would live a very sad life. There is a HUGE world out there. I tend to base my decisions on independant research and every bit of research I have done says that BSL doesn't work. I don't own a pit bull, I have never met a pit bull, I don't want a pit bull. What I want is for every dog owner to be responsible for their dog no matter what breed it is. I want a labrador retreiver owner to be just as responsible if their dog bites someone as a pit bull owner.

sammiec
October 5th, 2004, 09:18 AM
"responsible pitbull owner":
(all references are to an adult, full-sized pitbull)
-> don't leave unattended, in public.
I don't do this....

-> don't let kids walk it.
or this....

-> if you've got 2 pitbulls, don't walk both of them at the same time.
huh, only got one, so I don't do this either...

-> don't let your dog run off-leash, unless it's a park designated as such.
as an IRRESPONSIBLE pit bull owner this is the best place for your dog! Do you know that many dog fights occur in an offleash park? Do you know that these places are just a fight waiting to happen? Do you know that these places are just organized chaos with an accident waiting to happen? I DO because I used to take my dog there when she was a puppy. BUt not anymore...

-> understand the fact that many people are probably concerned after reading about so many serious attacks by pitbulls in the newspapers..so just be SENSIBLE, don't try and make your dog look as mean as possible with one of those bad-ass collars.
Huh, don't do this either! We are very courteous to strangers walking on the grass instead of the sidewalk, and letting people pass us by while waiting patiently...

-> spread the word, because you don't want few idiots to ruin the party for you not sure what this means.....

-> report offenders to the authorities. I think you're referring to IRRESPONBILE pit bull owners, yet I haven't met one to report....

-> maybe form some group...promote responsible pitbull ownership, try and be self-regulating
there are groups already existing like this, and unfortunately that because of people like you. If you didn't believe everything that you read you would see that there are people that do care for these animals, with their whole hearts... you would see that they just love to cuddle and be loved. But that's not what the media whould like you to see.
I encourage you to befriend a pit bull owner. I encourage you to MEET someone that owns a pit bull and ask them how this dog has changed thier lives. Please, at least give it a try.

mastifflover
October 5th, 2004, 11:09 AM
It bothers me that you are so closed minded and anything anybody says you ignore and keep stating the same things over and over. I agree that you need to be responsible but all dog owners need to be responsible and that is something that I see everyday just because someone has a Lab (example) and they are not normally very aggressive it does not mean that they dont have to have control over their dogs. I see these so called non aggressive dogs go after other dogs and the owners do nothing "Oh he's playing" but if a big dog does the same thing he is vicious. Double standard. SammieC is right off leash parks are in most cases fights waiting to happen because a lot of people cannot control their dogs. Most of the fights in parks where I go the fights are usually started by dogs like JRT (now there is a dog that will bite) and the owners think it is funny the little dog going after the big dog ha ha until the big dog is sick of it and retaliates. Then of course the big dog is to blame. It is the same thing for any breed be it Pit Bull or JRT they need to have responsible owners. Since you feel that you can not tell us anything about yourself or your dog (slightly paranoid) why do you think someone is going to go looking for you are you that important I doubt it. Let me guess you are the owner of a small dog that is not trained properly and you blame everybody else when dogs go after it because they are sick of being attacked by a small dog.

Writing4Fun
October 5th, 2004, 04:35 PM
BTPB, I would agree with your last post if you had indicated that it applied to all dogs regardless of breed/cross instead of just Pit Bulls.

The point you appear to be missing is that the majority of dog owners do follow these guidelines. The dogs you hear about in the news belong to those thugs you referred to in an earlier post, harassing elderly people and threatening folks with their dogs.

Let's face it. News reports are no longer intended to inform the masses as they perhaps once were originally intended to do. They've now become part of the entertainment industry, driven by ratings and accolades and the almighty dollar that sponsors provide. Look at the Middle-East. How many people live there? Are they all terrorists? No, not by a long shot. Do you ever hear about the regular schmoe who's just trying to live his life? No. You only ever hear about the extremists, the suicide bombers, the criminal element being hunted down by the authorities. Think about that for a while, okay? ;)

pitbulliest
October 5th, 2004, 05:02 PM
BANTHEPITBULL:
I am absolutely sorry that you have no knowledge of the breed, and are so incredibly guilable that you believe everything you hear in the media. It is absolutely disgusting that Michael Bryant is in fact listening to uneducated people like yourself that have no real experience with this wonderful breed. Your dog was attacked by a pit bull because ITS OWNER was irresponsible. Hence, irresponsible owners need to be targetted here, not the DOGS. YES, pit bulls have been bred to fight other animals, although this is completely different from human aggression. ANY pit bull (or dog for that matter) that is humanely aggressive needs to be evaluated by an animal behaviorist/psychologist immediately. These animals do not fit the breed standard and are most likely unsound dogs. With that being said, this is actually quite rare in pit bulls that are PROPERLY RAISED BY RESPONSIBLE OWNERS.

You are naive my friend, by thinking that BSL will help to solve the problem of irresponsible owners. These so called attacks are happening because the dogs are simply in the wrong hands..PERIOD! BSL will only affect the already responsible and law abiding pit bull owners..not the criminals,drug dealers, and dogmen that have created this problem in the first place. THOSE scumbags will only move their dogs underground or simply target another breed and repeat the same course of events that have been occuring.

Another thing: Your precious sources (statistics and the media as you have claimed), are completely biased, and more than 80% of the time, absolutely false. First of all, in most cases, the dogs that are labelled as "pit bulls" during attacks are more than half the time not even pit bulls at all. Officials are unqualified when it comes to breed identification, and hence never get it right in the first place. There have been numerous cases (and I was a witness) where a labrador, a german shephard, and even a Chihuahua were labelled as a pit bull terrier by people. THIS IS WHY your precious media means absolutely NOTHING to me.

Another thing you need to understand is that these dogs are not meant for everyone. I believe that the only people that should be owning these dogs are those that have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the breed (or are willing to go through all the research). Most of the people that own these dogs do not..which is a complete shame since I am forced to walk by an offleash dog park and witness a pit bull amongst the other dogs..any responsible pit bull owner knows that pit bulls do not belong in dog parks..why? Because they WERE bred to fight..and cannot be 100% trusted around other animals (not humans, but animals!). BSL is not the answer..but as I have already stated, stronger laws and penalties pertaining to irresponsible dog owners and breeders. Many pit bulls are in fact abused, neglected, and exploited. This is not the fault of the dog, but again, the owner. It is shameful for anyone to even say that they should be banned. This is pure ignorance that I simply will not tolerate. If anyone believes in BSL, you need to pick up some seriously good books and do alot of research before you open your mouth and utter that bull**** again.

I suggest you start immediately:
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.cfm
http://www.dogwatch.net/strategy.html
http://www.pbrc.net/dogpark.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/responsible.html
http://www.realpitbull.com/abuse.html
http://pitbulls.jentown.com/stereotype/pitbullstereotype.htm#stereotype
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/
http://www.ddfl.org/behavior/agg_dog.htm
http://www.workingpitbull.com/dogfighting.htm

why statistics are BS:
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/purchase.html
http://s96980453.onlinehome.us/statistics.htm
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
http://www.mnp13.com/findthepitbull/FindThePitBull.aspx
http://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/realitycheck.htm

what responsible breeders SHOULD be like:
http://www.hartagold.com/
http://www.matrixkennels.com/

Once you have read ALL these links BANTHEPITBULL, then you are welcome to post in this forum...other than that..don't waste your breath because you don't know enough to be saying jack right now.

heeler's rock!
October 5th, 2004, 05:40 PM
Just a question for everyone. Why are we still wasting time on BTPB when he/she is obviously a lost cause?

He/she already said, and I quote,-> You cannot prove otherwise by referring me to some website with some stats. The only way that will happen is when my personal experience changes and when I stop seeing people with torn faces on the cover of newspapers.

This person's personal experience will NEVER change beacuse they won't allow it too. SammieC, you've already asked BTPB to meet a responsible pit owner, and he/she obviously doesn't want to, because they may change their mind and be proven DEAD WRONG. BTPB will regret supporting BSL when his/her cousin is "attacked" by a lab, or a golden, or even a big fluffy pom, because the irresponsible owners will no longer have their pits, then he/she will be cryingto Mr. Bryant to put down labs, goldens, and poms.

I know how everyone feels about BTPB and we are all just trying to get him/her educated on the FACTS, but I have to agree with pitbulliest, ignorance is definitely bliss. I'll bet BTPB thinks I'm a terrorist too since the media has basically said all brown people are. :rolleyes:

Oh, and BTPB, good luck with the whole "believe everything you read" thing you've got going on for you. I just read that Elvis is alive and they found his spaceship on Mars! It must be true because it's in print!!! :rolleyes:

pitbulliest
October 5th, 2004, 05:44 PM
Naive, gullible, scumbag. Go read the admin's thread on namecalling. :eek:



Who are you to tell anyone when they are welcome to post in this thread? :eek: :mad:

Who am I? I'm someone that doesn't support BSL...that's who I am...do you have a problem with my passion for protecting my dog against ignorant people? If so, then the message that I had directed towards BANTHEPITBULLS is for you to read as well.

And...Heelersrock..you're absolutely right...

heeler's rock!
October 5th, 2004, 06:06 PM
Look. Why are we fighting eachother now?!? BTPB is winning by dividing us. Who cares what pibulliest said to BTPB? I for one would like to see him/her make a sensible post for once too, so maybe reading the attached links won't hurt.

Dinah, you said some harsh things yourself to BTPB, as I'm sure we all did. You are correct when you say that anyone can post here, but pitbulliest didn't say BTPB couldn't post here until reading the links, they said for BTPB to stop wasting their breath. As for saying that BTPB will be welcome after reading those, well, lest's face it, BTPB hasn't been welcome here for a while now. :rolleyes:

Maybe you could have chosen better words pitbulliest, but who cares now? Honestly? The post is there, let BTPB defend themselves if they are so offended. Let's try to stay on the topic of BSL, not who said what to whom.

mastifflover
October 5th, 2004, 06:10 PM
We dont need to argue with each other that would be stupid we all agree on the subject of BSL or can argue it intelligently on this forum. Lets see if BTPB takes the test I posted. Then we can see how incredibly breed smart he/she is. I predict a lie that he/she got it right away.

LavenderRott
October 5th, 2004, 06:13 PM
What saddens me is that this thread was a nice healthy debate with many facts presented for someone that is open minded enough to learn. Now it is a thread that has become a place to insult one another. Nothing I hate more then a hijacked thread.

chico2
October 5th, 2004, 06:23 PM
I just saw the Windsor shelter on the news,they are OVERCROWDED by pit-bulls having been just dropped off,according to the staff,most are great dogs....it just brought me to tears :(
All these dogs,most who have done no harm to anyone,so sad :mad:
I take it most of those dogs were not licensed and if you own a pittie,have them licensed before all of Ontario adopts BSL..
It never really hit home,before I saw these poor dogs behind bars...what's going to happen to them? Massmurder???

chico2
October 5th, 2004, 07:42 PM
The picture of this beautiful white pittie-girl behind bars sticks in my mind,wagging her tail,licking the hand of a handler and it really makes me sad.
Does anyone know what they are going to do to these dogs?
Are there any rescues in Canada or he US that can save them from being PTS?
Is there going to be a mass-slaughter of pit-bulls?
What happens when the THS fills up with pitties?
This is like a horror-show :mad:

Writing4Fun
October 5th, 2004, 08:45 PM
Does anyone know what they are going to do to these dogs?
Is this an OSPCA in Windsor? Maybe they can move them to OSPCA branches where the ban hasn't been imposed?