Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

What is your answ. to dog attacks?

anniebananie
September 3rd, 2004, 06:52 AM
I realise that Rottis and Pit Bulls are in the news, but what would your answer be to attacks on other dogs and people. I also understand that there are many responsible people keeping these dogs that have no problems at all. Should all dogs be muzzled if they outside their own homes. Should people who own larger *attack* dogs (by that I mean dogs that are known for aggression) have to pay more for licensing them? How would you keep these dogs out of the hands of people who use them as a status symbol? Most dogs aren't to blame but the owners are - how would you curb the owners? How would you regulate breeders?

My way of thinking is what ever you do is going to drive the owners and breeders of *fighting* dogs will just drive them underground. Every time I think of an answer, I realise something else would happen as a consequence - and the thought just circle in my head. I know most of you are against banning certain breeds - but what is the answer?

sammiec
September 3rd, 2004, 08:26 AM
As a pit bull owner I feel that regulating the dogs would not help, it's not the dogs fault - like LavR posted somewhere else - the dog cannot take itself to the vet, obedience trainging, give itself the love and affection that they so need. These dogs are just big teddy bears. They NEED to feel loved, they NEED attention.
If you lock dogs up in the backyard and neglect them they get stressed and bored. The bordem turns to anger and then they attack. It's like any breed that is neglected - it's not just the pit bulls and rotties.
I feel that an owner of these dogs should have to be regulated. I feel that I am a responsible owner - therefore I would not hesitate to give personal information for myself and the dog to the police. I would go to the required classes, I would (and do) socialze her with other dogs and children SUPERVISED.
I think that muzzling a dog is just an easy way for lazy and dangerous owners to get off with not training and not socializng their animals properly.

I would hire more people to investigate animal cruelty and neglect, backyard breeders and adoption agencies / shelters. The money that they would use to inforce the ban would be used much more efficiently that way. I mean - how many people will they have to hire in order to ensure that there are no pit bulls in such an enormous province? - they don't even know how many pits are really living in Kitchener / Waterloo.

The breed ban will prevent loving and caring owners like myself from having our dogs, but those idiots that fight them - that don't see the breed for what they are worth - will destroy them and kill them in the name of the game, they will no longer know love and affection, like every animal deserves.

anniebananie
September 3rd, 2004, 08:47 AM
I agree with the training of all dogs - but irresponsible owners aren't going to take them - they just want the dogs and get them - and I am not just talking about PB and Rottis' - even smaller dogs will bite others if given half a chance - when they are in the hands of owners who just don't care. If you ban one breed others will take their place - so I can't see that working. I know some PB and Rottis, GSD that are just super kind gentle dogs. A friend of mine has a Rotti and all he wants to do is sit on a lap and slobber over whoever :p How do you stop people getting dogs who they won't care for, or give love - but rule by total domination and cruelty. It isn't the dogs fault. Should the money for the extra people needed to *police* where the dogs land up - be taken from us all with higher licencing fees - the government aren't really going to do anything. Should Vets lower the pricing structures to have these type of dogs - or any dog come to that - neutored? I know in this area of Ontario the vet prices have made it impossible for a lot of dog and cat owners getting their animals fixed. Now people I know avoid the vets like the plague.

As I said - I have tried thinking of a way round this - so that no dog gets into a situation of being banned from highly populated areas - but every time I do, then there are other consequences that spring to mind. I don't like the idea of muzzling dogs either - but if everyone did it from when the dogs were young - ALL DOGS - would this not go towards a more responsible ownership? If you see a dog without one - it could be reported and an investigation done. :confused:

sammiec
September 3rd, 2004, 09:04 AM
Sorry, I must have misread, I didn't realize that we were talking about dog ownership in general :o !

Muzzling a dog from birth... I don't see that as an effective may to maintain a safer environment. The poor dogs are suffering for human comfort.
I don't see any other viable option. All dogs should be trained. When you adopt of by a dog the people the dog came from register it immediately with the province or whatever and you have 6 months to comply otherwise you lose the dog. It's a VERy difficult idea, I know... honestly, we can try and have everything regulated, but in the long run - it's the same as everything else! Take speeding for instance, many of us do it, we get caught, get a large ticket and then as the officer pulls away we're right back at it.

I say increasing adoption fees would be the first step. I realize that there would be MANY people that would no adopt these animals because they don't want to pay 300 - 400 dollars, but that would weed out the idiots. THEN there would be more BYB... it's a vicious and dangerous cirlce I think. There needs to be many years of studies and trail attempts to come up with a safe and realistic option...

LavenderRott
September 3rd, 2004, 09:49 AM
Since most people who own dogs that attack other dogs and people are not, generally, responsible, the answer is in tougher penalties for dogs that are running loose and dogs that do bite. Since everyone is concerned about a hefty fine if their dog accidently gets out, let the first time be a "freebie". No big fine, but the dog must be microchipped before being returned to the owner. That way, every time the dog gets loose thereafter, it can be tracked. The more often it runs loose the heftier the fine. If your dog attacks and seriously injures or kills someone - you better be prepared to spend some time in jail. Even thugs and criminals understand jail.

Babs
September 3rd, 2004, 12:25 PM
We need jurisdiction that:

1) Shuts down Puppy Mills and Backyard breeders, at whatever cost. Breeding should be performed only by professional breeders, who know and understand the genetic dangers caused by mass breeding. Breeding should not be another way "to make a quick buck" for inexperienced people.

2) Actually enforces the regulation of dog licensing and identification. (This should be what the Humane Societies are paid to investigate by the City/Province, not dog removal).

3) Changes to the Criminal Code to involve charges for serious dog attacks and irresponsible ownership. (This one could require involvement with the Federal Government).

4) Educating the public on the seriousness of dog training and socialization. If the government can afford to spend money on voting campaigns broadcast through Television, Radio and the Newspaper, they can afford spend money on media campaigns promoting and educating people about responsible pet ownership.

anniebananie
September 3rd, 2004, 01:04 PM
Babs: I understand all that you are saying. It would be a really wonderful world if the Government would take notice of *animal rights* and not themselves for once - but we all know that this wont happen. Just look at their reaction to dog attack - ban the breed - which doesn't do anything other than get people to fear the breed concerned, then vote for the mindless ideas the government puts forward.

Shutting down puppy mills would be super as well, but again it isn't going to happen - people get caught, but there are lots more about that we don't know about. I would persoanlly love to find everyone in our area and get rid of them, but they claim not to be Puppy Mills - just breeders. Few get caught - only the horrendously bad ones. Getting rid of the family breeder (I think this is what you are refering to by backyard breeders) may just get rid of some of the nicer traits in some dogs. Breeders can be a little over the top in *fine tuning* a breed so that the origin of the animal is lost. In the UK I bred (and was registered) King Charles Cavaliers. I brought them over to Canada with me to find that over here the *guts* had been taken out of the breed. They are hunting dogs in the UK.

Enforcing towns about licencing dogs is a hoot. I live in a town who employ people during the summer to go from door to door getting people to pay up - no one want to go to the Office to pay. If no one is around, and there doesn't seem to be a dog around then the *enforcers* just leave. Micro chipping and spaying - both come at a high cost to the owner from a vet - a lot of people no longer go to a vet unless the dog is on it's last legs, and by then the damage has been done. I mean breeding (backyard) or attacking. I know enough rural people who think nothing of just shooting a dog to save the cost at the vets.

The whole thing is really like un-inventing electricity - you can't do it - So although your ideas are great, there are consequences. Where would the *mutts* come from, the cross breeds etc? :confused:

heidiho
September 3rd, 2004, 01:22 PM
I do believe if you know your dog is somewhat aggressive,then yes when you walk him in a public place you should take precautions[muzzle or what ever is needed]it is your responsibliity ...

Donna Marie
September 3rd, 2004, 01:59 PM
I am sick and tired of people generalizing about one specific breed. It always is the Pitt Bulls and the Rottweilers getting a bad rap. Personal experiences of mine....I was attacked by a german shepard when I was a kid. My son was attacked by a cocker spaniel when he was younger. The problem? THE OWNERS!!! Most people would be afraid after an attack, but I was taught at a young age, and I taught my son at a young age that it is not always the animals fault....it is the owner to blame. I absolutely adore dogs....all of them....as does my son. Unfortunately we live in a townhouse where we can't get a big dog (people do in our complex, but I think it is unfair to the animal of that size not having a yard.).

heidiho
September 3rd, 2004, 02:05 PM
Some of the meanest dogs i have met are chiuauas[dont know how to spell it]I am with you on that,and some of the friendliest dogs i have met are the big ones..........................

Babs
September 3rd, 2004, 02:15 PM
All we can do right now is generate ideas to present to government as effective solutions that don't require BSL.

We know BSL hasn't worked, nor will it work. But now that the Provincial Government has loudly voiced to the public they will take action... they have to do something. If there is no other alternative, they will pursue BSL and will find reasons to justify it. That's a fact.

1) If there were high fines, charges laid, and jail time involved for owners of dogs who bite, you will definately see a lot less dog owners... owners who buy a dog because their child wants one, or they want to look "macho". Owners will realize that there is a large responsibility involved with making sure their dog doesn't grow up a biter, and that in itself is a deterrant for irresponsible ownership.

2) If all bites were reported by health officials every time someone came in for treatment, to the police, there would be less inaccuracy in statistics, and more people would face responsibility for their pet ownership.

3) If there are investigators willing to take the time to hunt down and find Pit Bulls, there is manpower to hunt down and find Puppy Mills and Backyard Breeders. All it takes is a suspicious citizen, and we all have one of those on our street! It's hard to keep yelping puppies quiet.

4) If it was illegal for Pet Stores to sell animals that didn't come through the Humane Society or from a Registered Breeder, and these sites were investigated regularly... and if it was illegal to sell or give dogs/puppies through the newspaper, you remove the point-of-sale from backyard breeders and puppy mills.

5) If selling animals was regulated, and the province decrees that all animals must be microchipped, it would have to become a mandatory pre-requisite for all dogs and puppies before they are sold. The humane society has already been doing this for years, and adopting a pet through them has never been anywhere near as expensive as buying from a breeder.

Just a few thoughts.

anniebananie
September 3rd, 2004, 05:13 PM
Babs - Great ideas. Maybe this group can come up with ideas that could be put forward to all our Municiple mini politicos - and then onto the Provincial and then Federal. This is why I posted the question. :D I was hoping to get replies that would look at the problem and find answers - not just scream about banning certain breeds. All dogs can be dangerous if not loved and trained - I have two JR's and know little dogs can bite. Once I had a Cavalier that bit me - but it was my own fault - I moved her puppies (durh) into a nursery pen to soon for her liking :eek: If we can keep this thread bumped we may get more input over the next few days - hopefully.

I saw you posting on dog training - isn't the humans that need training? :confused: :confused: :confused:

daisy18216
September 4th, 2004, 12:09 AM
As an owner of a Pit Bull, Pit Bull Mix, and German Shepard I have to come and defend them.

As mentioned before, it is NOT the dogs fault, but the fault of irresponisble, ignorance of the owners.

I don't walk my dogs w/muzzles on. They don't and won't hurt anybody, they are big BIG babies.

My Pit Bull the worst he would do is give you a slobber kiss. He loves kissing and hugging people. (hugging I mean if your on your knees and ask him for a hug he'll put his front paws on your shoulder and have his wiggle butt going).

My Pit Bull Mix will come up to you and love for you to scratch his butt.

My GSD won't leave you alone until you pet him.

All dogs of all breeds JUST WANT TO BE LOVED, SHOWED AFFECTION, AND KNOW THAT THEY ARE PROTECTED FROM HARM.

Our dogs would never hurt anybody. They are EXCELLENT w/my 3 small children. My children range in ages from 6 yrs to 2 yrs old.

My kids pull on my dogs and try to ride them like horses, and hand feed them (even though they know better :p ), and my dogs turn around and give them kisses and go back to their business.

I don't think that bans are necessary (as the bad as$es will just produce another vicious breed), I don't think muzzles are necessary (unless your pet is aggressive, and you feel safer putting muzzles on them), I don't think they should be targeting the larger breeds.

The smaller breeds are more vicious then the bigger breeds.

I know not everyone on here is going to agree w/me and I'll probably upset people.. That's my feelings and I have the so call vicious breeds at my home w/3 small children. If they were that vicious I wouldn't have them around my kids.

I'm for protecting and promoting the good in Pit Bulls and GSD's.

Here is pics of my "vicious dogs"
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/daisy18216/dogs%20and%20kids%20with%20dogs/000_0262.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/daisy18216/dogs%20and%20kids%20with%20dogs/2dogs_and_baby.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/daisy18216/dogs%20and%20kids%20with%20dogs/two_dogs_and_youngest_son.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/daisy18216/dogs%20and%20kids%20with%20dogs/two_kids_and_one_dog.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/daisy18216/dogs%20and%20kids%20with%20dogs/two_kids_and_two_dogs_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/daisy18216/dogs%20and%20kids%20with%20dogs/petie_and_jennie.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/daisy18216/dogs%20and%20kids%20with%20dogs/tyler_and_petie.jpg

these are just some of the pics that I have of all my babies and furbabies.

Babs
September 4th, 2004, 01:59 AM
Daisy! Those are awesome pics!

anniebananie
September 4th, 2004, 07:45 AM
Daisy - what lovely pictures.

What ideas have you for ending this *banning* idea? The Government just come up with the first things that come into their empty heads - perhaps we can give them some other answers - by we I mean the dogs owners of this country. We can defend the dogs all we want, but that doesn't help the situation. Somewhere there have to be answers that can be put to those who had this *bright idea* of banning larger dogs - that will replace that. The press aren't helping either :mad: I think Babs may have hit a few nails on the head - but any idea to add to that?

Babs
September 4th, 2004, 09:41 AM
This is what the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies wrote in 1999, and has been trying since then to encourage the country to use.

5 years... and I still have no idea why Canada is dragging on this. It's a solid proposal. Source: http://www.cfhs.ca/Programs/Legislation/bylaws1.htm

They've even written a sample Bylaw!

.................................................. ...

I. Introduction

This package on municipal bylaws is intended to help Canadian municipalities implement effective bylaws regulating companion animals in their jurisdictions. It is also hoped that this project will bring some uniformity to bylaws across the country.

We have domesticated and kept animals as companions for hundreds of years. Pets have become part of many families. These animals not only provide companionship but may also provide significant health benefits to their owners. Unfortunately, not all these pet owners understand or accept the lifetime responsibilities that a pet requires. All pet owners should have their animals permanently identified, spayed or neutered, kept under control, properly trained, socialized and cared for.

Some pet owners are unaware or neglectful of their responsibilities to their pets or allow their pets to annoy their neighbours or harass wild animals that share the environment. This can result in dog bites, threats to people or animals, damage or contamination of property, pet overpopulation, abuse or neglect of animals and other consequences. The solution involves effective legislation and education that encourages responsible pet ownership.

Municipalities need to enact bylaws that stipulate the types of animals allowed as pets, that require humane and responsible treatment of animals to prevent them from disturbing or harming people, animals or property, and other provisions as determined by each council.

In addition to the benefits of public safety and satisfaction, practical and progressive animal control bylaws should be cost effective for the municipality. Irresponsible pet owners cost taxpayers money through pound costs, investigation of complaints, and pet overpopulation. These costs can be offset by significantly higher licence fees for pets that are not spayed or neutered, increased fines for repeat offenders and other regulations that encourage responsible pet ownership.

This package brings together expertise from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada. These groups make up the National Companion Animal Coalition, which was formed in 1996 to promote socially responsible pet ownership and enhance the health and well-being of companion animals. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is an observer member of the group. Additional input has also been obtained from key individuals involved in animal welfare and municipal animal control.

II. Dog and Cat Control

Most municipalities in Canada have had dog control bylaws for many years, requiring owners to take responsibility for their dogs. However, very few municipalities require cat owners to do the same. Historically, it has been widely accepted that cats are allowed to roam free. In recent years, however, with a significant increase in the number of cats, this policy is being questioned by more and more urban municipalities as well as by residents tired of neighbours' cats digging and eliminating in their gardens and howling during the night.

Some people believe that cats should not be kept indoors and need to roam outside satisfying their hunting instincts. Others recognize that with adequate attention, companionship and the opportunity to play, cats can have a fulfilling life indoors. Indoor cats are generally healthier, don't get lost, disturb neighbours, kill wildlife or spread disease, and generally don't contribute to the growing problem of cat overpopulation that forces animal shelters to euthanize many thousands of cats every year.

Municipalities can address these problems by introducing bylaws that discourage breeding and that require cats to be licenced, permanently identified, and kept indoors unless in an enclosed area or supervised on a harness and leash. The implementation of effective municipal cat bylaws will result in reduced pound costs due to fewer cats roaming loose, increased revenue from licence fees and fines, a reduction in the cat population due to incentives to spay and neuter, and a reduction in conflicts between cats and the public. These issues have a greater significance in urban areas than in rural and farm areas where cats are often used to help control rodents.

When a cat licencing bylaw is introduced, the municipality will need to conduct a public awareness program to help cat owners understand the issues and what their responsibilities are. It is important that this be done in a positive way to encourage compliance. This can be done by highlighting the benefits to the animals themselves as well as the public at large. There are significant health and behavioural benefits to spaying or neutering cats and dogs.

A. Licencing/Identification

One of the roles of municipal animal control bylaws is to encourage responsible pet ownership through licencing, permanent identification and spay/neuter requirements. The preferred methods of permanent identification are microchipping and tatooing. Tags should also be worn (on break-away collars for cats) as proof of ownership so that animals may be returned to their owners sooner, often by neighbours, without incurring pound costs. Municipalities should offer incentives for pet owners to comply with the bylaw by reducing licence fees and fines for cats and dogs that are spayed or neutered and permanently identified. Compliance can be encouraged by implementing stiff fines for failing to obtain and wear a licence.

Responsible pet owners save municipalities money by reducing the number of dogs and cats running loose, by preventing indiscriminate breeding and by keeping their pets under control. Revenue from licencing and fines can be allocated to offset pound costs and for education programs in the municipality.

Cat licencing requirements enable cat owners to contribute to the cost of animal control in the municipality, a cost that has traditionally been borne by dog owners. Most municipal pounds and humane societies take in many more cats than dogs, resulting in higher budget allocations for cats in their care. In addition, less than 5% of cats are claimed by their owners, compared to over 30% for dogs (CFHS 1997 statistics from Canadian shelters).

B. Neutering (Spay or Castration)

Pet overpopulation is a major problem. It is currently a significant factor in the euthanasia of almost 60% of cats and more than 30% of dogs in animal shelters across Canada every year (CFHS 1997 statistics from Canadian shelters). Municipalities can be part of the solution to this problem by implementing and enforcing bylaws that encourage and reward responsible pet owners who licence, permanently identify and neuter their pets.

An important aspect of responsible pet ownership is neutering of companion animals to prevent the birth of more puppies and kittens needing homes. Municipalities can encourage pet owners to have their pets neutered by implementing preferential licence fees for altered dogs and cats. The differential should be high enough to act as an incentive for pet owners to have their pets neutered. Municipalities can also help by educating pet owners about the health and behavioural benefits of neutering their pets, as well as their social responsibility to do so.

C. Number of Dogs and Cats Permitted

Establishing an arbitrary limit on the number of dogs and cats permitted in a dwelling does not address concerns about irresponsible pet ownership, but rather, may punish responsible pet owners who are providing proper care to their companion animals. Concerns about inhumane treatment of the animals or disturbance in the neighbourhood are addressed in Section D.

However, some urban municipalities may wish to establish a limit on the number of dogs and cats permitted in one dwelling. A dwelling housing more than the maximum number would be considered a kennel or cattery and would be subject to municipal bylaws applying to such establishments (See Section VI).

D. Responsibilities of Owner

There are many responsibilities that come with pet ownership. Some of these responsibilities are for the benefit of the animal, and some are for the benefit of society. It is important that municipalities enact bylaws that both require and encourage responsible pet ownership. In a fast-paced society where decisions are made quickly and things are easily disposed of, pets often become victims of neglect. As well as costing the animals their quality of life, such neglect also costs taxpayers money in enforcement, pound costs, euthanasia, etc.

i) Being at Large

Dogs and cats should not be permitted to be at large except in designated areas, to ensure the safety of the public, the animal itself, and other animals. A dog or cat being at large is one that is on property other than the property of the owner and is not on a leash and/or under the control of a person responsible.

Many dog owners seek open areas to let their pets run off leash for exercise and social stimulation with other dogs, both important aspects of responsible dog ownership. Municipalities may consider establishing a neighbourhood committee of pet owners and non-pet owners to address the issue of off-leash areas for dogs. The group, operating by consensus, should work to find the most effective solution for their neighbourhood. One possibility would be to establish areas and times of day where dogs are permitted to be off leash. All other municipal bylaws such as stoop and scoop, licencing and dangerous dogs would apply. These areas should be well sign posted so that non-dog owners are aware that dogs will be running loose. Garbage receptacles should be provided and maintained. A growing number of urban municipalities are realizing that permitting cats to roam free inevitably results in trespassing and damage to private property. Concerns are increasing about the overpopulation of cats, predation on birds or other wildlife, contamination of property and the spread of disease. All these concerns are eliminated when cats are kept indoors or under control by a leash or enclosure.

(ii) Providing Care

It is recommended that municipalities make every effort to ensure that pet owners provide their animals with care to meet their species-specific health, physical, social, and behavioural needs. This should include clean water and food, proper housing, appropriate companionship, health care and exercise.

Generally the appropriate humane society or SPCA will have authority over cases of abuse or neglect of animals. Municipalities should liaise closely with their local or provincial society in this regard.

(iii) Stoop and Scoop

Dog and cat owners should be required to clean up their pets' faeces from any public or private property.

(iv) Nuisance

Dog and cat owners must prevent their pets from chasing, biting, harassing or attacking a person or other animal and from damaging public or private property.

(v) Transportation

Municipalities may include a requirement that animals be transported humanely and safely. Companion animals should be transported in the passenger compartment of vehicles unless they are securely confined and adequately sheltered. Animals transported loose in the back of pick-up trucks pose a risk to public safety if they fall out, as well as severe risk of injury to the animals themselves. This practice should not be permitted.

E. Dangerous Dogs

Addressing dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs is a challenge for municipalities. It is often difficult to determine whether a dog may be dangerous until it has bitten or attacked a person or animal. Municipalities should consider adopting legislation aimed at reducing the likelihood of harmful situations occurring.

It is important for municipalities to keep in mind that dangerous dogs are generally the result of irresponsible ownership. Dogs can become a threat if they are not properly socialized and trained, if they are mistreated or if they are deliberately bred or encouraged to attack people or animals.

First, it must be established exactly what constitutes a dangerous dog. The criteria should not be breed specific as this only discriminates against certain breeds, instead of evaluating individual dogs by their behaviour. Suggested criteria for identifying dangerous dogs include:
a dog that has killed a person or domestic animal, regardless of the circumstances
a dog that has bitten or injured a person or domestic animal. Exceptions may be made if the dog was teased, abused, assaulted or if the dog was reacting to a person trespassing on the property owned by the dog's owner
a dog that has shown the disposition or tendency to be threatening or aggressive an attack trained dog
Municipalities should require that dangerous dogs either be euthanised in the interests of public safety, or that their owners meet specific requirements for the humane care of such dogs, that will ensure public safety. Penalties should be established for owners who do not comply with the requirements.

Dangerous dogs should be licenced and spayed or neutered as this may reduce aggressive tendencies and will prevent the owners from profiting from the sale of offspring that are also likely to be dangerous. These dogs should be muzzled and leashed when off the owner's property and strictly confined when on the owner's property. If an owner is unwilling or unable to meet these requirements, euthanasia should be imposed.

(i) Licencing

Municipalities may wish to implement a dangerous dog licence that the owner of such a dog must purchase for a significantly higher fee than a regular dog licence. Such a licence would also have rigid requirements for housing and care of the dog as stated in this section.

(ii) Confinement

Dangerous dogs should be kept indoors or in a secured yard that prevents the dog from escaping over or under the fence or by any other means, and that prevents access by the public. They should not be confined only by a chain or tether.

(iii) Other Requirements

Warning signs should be clearly and visibly posted on the property where a dangerous dog is kept. Municipalities may also require that owners of dangerous dogs carry additional liability insurance that would cover any damage or harm caused by the dog.

(iv) Violations

Dog owners whose animals violate the requirements of the dangerous dog bylaw should receive harsh fines due to the threat of public safety. Fines should be increased for repeat offences. Euthanasia may be imposed, based on the severity and frequency of the infractions.

(v) Dog Fighting

Under no circumstances can dog fighting or the training or keeping of dogs for fighting be permitted. This is an inhumane and illegal activity.

III Unsanitary Conditions

For the sake of public health, comfort or enjoyment of any people, and for the animals' well-being, no animal should be kept in unsanitary conditions. This would include an accumulation of faeces, an odour, insect or rodent infestation.

IV Other Animals as Pets

Some people select other animals as pets. These animals have specific needs (behavioural, environmental, social and nutritional) that must be met. Responsible pet ownership practices are no less important.

All the following criteria should be taken into account when considering other animals as pets:
a) Species ownership is supported by the existence of published information pertinent to its proper animal husbandry and veterinary care requirements
b) Species ownership does not pose a significant threat to public health and safety
c) The species in question does not represent a significant threat to native (indigenous) wildlife populations
d) Species ownership is permitted under provincial, federal or international laws and regulations, such as the following:
Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Canada is a signatory party.
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA). Federal statute administered by Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service)
At the provincial level, pertinent regulations usually fall under the Ministry of Agriculture and/or Ministry of Natural Resources (Fish and Game Department)

NOTE: Information on all these regulations can be obtained from the local provincial conservation officer or game warden.

V. Penalties

Municipalities may encounter problems with repeat offenders, where the fine is not sufficient to prevent the problem from recurring. Attempts should be made to educate the individual regarding the reasons for the bylaw and encouraging them to comply. In cases where this is ineffective, it is recommended that fines be levied on a graduated scale based on repeat offences.

Higher fines should also be imposed for violations involving cats or dogs that are not spayed or neutered. This surcharge could be reimbursed if the animal is spayed or neutered within a two month period following the violation (or once the animal is six months old).

VI. Kennels, Pet Stores and Animal Shelters

Municipalities are encouraged to implement specific requirements for the care and housing of animals in establishments such as kennels, catteries, pet stores, animal shelters, and other animal establishments. Conditions in such establishments should at least meet the requirements in Section II D (ii) and Section III in this document. For more information, contact the appropriate member of the Coalition. Municipalities may have zoning bylaws regulating where such establishments may be located.

VII. Traps

Municipalities are encouraged to prohibit the use of leghold traps, killing traps and snares in suburban areas.

jenjen
September 4th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Daisy: I think your puppies might think that your babies are thiers. VERY CUTE.


Hearing all of you comment on this subject has got me thinking. I have always been afraid of big dogs. Meaning mostly pit bulls and rotties. A lot of it has to do with the fact of everything the media is saying. Another pitbull attack. Another rottie attack. It seems that these are the only dogs that do attack. BS...............Another reason I am afraid is because I have a small dog and I am never sure what the larger dogs are gonna do.

My grandmother was attacked by a german sheperd.... I myself was bitten by a husky. Never thought anything of it because hey these dogs usually don't attack. But now as I read it more in the paper, have been a member of this site, and have a big pit bull and rottie that now live below me, My opinions have changed. I no longer cringe at the site of bigs dogs....instead eye up the owner to see what kind of human I am dealing with. I do believe very much that it is not these animals that are at fault but the owners themsleves. It really is the same if you look at children. If thier parents are losers, there is a good chance they will turn out somewhat like there parents if not taught otherwise. These Pitbulls and rotties and whatever else are like 2 year olds....they need to be taught everything just like a little kid does. And if given the proper care and attention there is no reason why these dogs cannot be loving family pets.
I was very nervous when I noticed that a rotti and pitbull had moved in below and that i would have to cross there path everyday. I spoke with the owner and he told me thier names, and everything he has done with them to make them the perfect family dog. They have been around children and small dogs all there lives. They love people. And they listen to dad very welll. They now meet me when I come home with there big wiggle butts and I am no longer afraid. I actually feel a little more comfortable knowing that thses gentle giants are down stairs.
It would be great if the puppy mills could be shut down, and if there was a way to weed out the dummy animals. The gov't should get invloved. Why not tax dog breeders like they do everything else and then the only people breeding would be the ones that actusally care about the breed and aren't worried about making an extra buck. People look at breeding as a way of making money. Do we breed people to sell off the children.NO.
We should all learn to fear our fellow humans instead of the animals in our care.
Thumbs up to all the "big dog" owners who are fighting for these breeds.

jenjen
September 4th, 2004, 11:47 AM
One more comment about what babs said and the humane society:

They do regulate and they do ask questions and even make you sign a contract agreeing to there rules. I will never buy an animal from a pet store or puppy mill. I think pet stores are just as bad. I adopted my first cat from the spca here in calgary, and it was the best decision i made. My kitty came with all her baby making parts gone, all her shots and a microchip. They asked me valuable questions like would I ever get her declawed, would I let her outside, would I ever return her to the shelter...things like that. When my second stray cat had her babies those were the questions I wanted answered before letting them go. If I had answered wrong to any of the questions the lady at the spaca asked me, there is a good chance that I would not have my kitty today. And nor would I deserve to have her if that was the case.
If everything ran like the spca and humane society,a lot of these problems would be taken care of. Some dumb *** that works in construction say......makes a lot of money....decides he wants to get a rottie. He can pay the 600$ (i know thats what rotties go for here) but is anyone going to ask him these important ?'s. NOPE cause he has the 600$. Its all about the money when it really comes down to it. Not about the animals.

lezzpezz
September 4th, 2004, 12:21 PM
Hi there. I apologize if this suggestion has already been made, but there are a LOT of responses to this question on this page and I am at work and cannot possibly read them all, (without getting caught!).

I have 3 large dogs and walk them simultaneously on leash using both Halti and Gentle Leader products. I have a 120 lb. Great Pyrenees, who shows aggression toward other female dogs during our walk, an 86 lb. husky, who loves to chase any bunny or sqirrel in site, and a 60 lb.chow/collie(?) mix, who thinks it is his job to warn the entire neighbourhood that another dog/person/car is on the street at the same time as him! So, I have my hands quite full, but the situation is manageable with the use of these products. No muzzle required, as I am able to control the dogs and avoid any interaction with passersby. My dogs are able to bark, breathe easy and pant, drink, eat and puke, if need be. The perception from the public is that I have 3 "muzzled" dogs under control and that we are approachable. I do explain that the "halti" or Gentle Leader" is NOT a muzzle and expain the difference as well as the benefits of such devices. Everyone is happy.

I think if the powers-that-be were to consider adopting such tools for every dog owner to use, this might satisfy the general population and provide safety to the public and consistent control of dogs.

Lezzerpezzer

LavenderRott
September 4th, 2004, 12:39 PM
My mom uses a halti on her greyhound because it "gives her more control" The problem is, if that thing comes off her head, for whatever reason, my mom has NO control at all. Why, because the dog has had no training. Too many people think that a halti or a gentle leader is such a good "training tool" because the minute they put it on, the dog goes wherever they want it too. I suppose I would go where you wanted me to also, if you were dragging me around by my nose. (But don't count on it.)

Please don't take this wrong, because I have never met you or your dogs and am just going by what you posted, but it sounds to me like your dogs need some training.

I own a rottweiler and a beagle. My girls are not allowed to approach another dog, chase after things or bark their fool heads off when we are walking. And they know not to. They pay attention to me, unless I tell them otherwise. I also walk my dogs seperately. Always. That way, they get one on one time with me and I don't have to worry about some kind of juggling act if we happen to come upon some idiots dog that is not on a leash.

lezzpezz
September 4th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Not a problem...the pyr and the husky are both graduates of the canine good citizen course, but we adopted both at an older age and even the course trainer said that the pyr had some issues that would be virtually impossible to sort out, as we don't know her past, although it would seem she was in bad hands. She was a "throw-away" dog, as were the other 2. The husky doesn't get the opportunity to "go" for the squirrels etc, but he shows a great interest. He is under voice control and haltied, and I have yet to have an incident of a bad nature with him. The chow mix is new to our household and is undergoing training as we speak. He is SO vocal!! They really aren't that bad; I was just trying to make a point that the halti etc. can be very helpful and useful, however, not 100% reliable, as you have stated. I really would hate to have to muzzle every dog in Canada, wouldn't you? Just looking for alternative possibilities.

All in all, we are doing our best and the training never ends. L

Writing4Fun
September 4th, 2004, 01:12 PM
Lezzerpezzer, your dogs are Canine Good Citizens, that's great! :D I am curious about a couple of things, though. I looked up the requirements for this test, and apparently there's a part about meeting another dog politely. How did your dogs do on that part of the test? Also, here's what the AKC has to say about halti's used during the test: "All tests must be performed on leash. Dogs should wear well-fitting buckle or slip collars made of leather, fabric, or chain. Special training collars such as pinch collars, head halters, etc. are not permitted in the CGC test. We recognize that special training collars may be very useful tools for beginning dog trainers, however, we feel that dogs are ready to take the CGC test at the point at which they are transitioned to regular collars." Were your dogs wearing head halters during the test? Are the requirements different for the Canadian Canine Good Citizen test? :confused:

PS. I don't want to sound like I'm questioning you. I'm just really curious because I'd love to get my dog to that level, and am wondering if the testing is a stringent as I was lead to believe, and if there's a big difference between the American and the Canadian tests.

lezzpezz
September 4th, 2004, 01:45 PM
Hi again. No use of halties or anything, but leashes required. The husky aced the meet and greet part as he's a cupcake and very obedient. Rosie the pyr, however, did a fantastic job on every other aspect of the course EXCEPT the meet and greet. The trainer said that her behaviour is pretty much set by 5 years of age, but to persevere and keep her attention on me, not her surroundings, when encountering another dog. All the training went south when we brought the third dog into the mix, as he gets the other 2 into a tizwaz when he gets excited. BUT, I stick to the plan and we manage quite nicely. In time, I should have a fairly well-behaved lady and 2 polite gentlemen!! (I hope!). L