Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Mr. Michael Bryants letter to the star

Luvmypit
October 21st, 2004, 12:15 PM
Previous Story
Print Story
E-mail Story
Next Story



Oct. 21, 2004. 01:00 AM


The case for banning pit bulls


MICHAEL BRYANT

Pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals, more bull than pet, and therefore should not be haunting the streets, fields and family rooms of Ontario. A remarkable, silent majority is finally being heard on this issue.

But the debate over banning pit bulls is not exclusive to Ontario: Bans are in place in places like Kitchener-Waterloo, Windsor, Winnipeg, and abroad in Britain and New Zealand, and are being considered in London, Brantford, and Toronto. Why ban these beasts?

There are statistics to back up the thousands of e-mails I have received of unreported pit bull attacks, but nothing makes the case for banning pit bulls better than the experiences of Winnipeg and Kitchener.

Winnipeg was experiencing more than 30 serious, reported pit bull attacks a year. Today? Zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks annually, and in a few short years since the ban was introduced, they now have about one a year.

That means that people in those cities who otherwise would have continued to be attacked by pit bulls were, instead, spared serious injury.

Ten years ago, when I saw the 5-year-old Toronto girl whose face was savagely mauled by a pit bull, many wondered how many more children would be harmed by these incomparably vicious dogs. Ten years from now, maybe there will be no more, if this pit bull ban passes in Queen's Park.

Even more interestingly, attacks in Winnipeg by all breeds of dogs once numbering 30 to 40 per year have decreased overall. A decade after their pit bull ban was instituted, dog attacks number about one per year, refuting the claim that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by the banned pit bulls.

The truth is, while other dogs can be dangerous, no other dog is as dangerous as a pit bull.

No other dog can match the severity of the attack, and the unpredictability of the attack. Even a U.S. study from 2000, sometimes cited as evidence by opponents of the pit bull ban, finds that one-third of dog-bite related fatalities yes, fatalities were caused by pit bulls.

While it may be difficult to say definitively how many pit bulls there are in North America, it is certain that one-third of dogs are not pit bulls, a breed that is killing and attacking at an alarming rate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't permit muzzled wolves on leashes in public parks. Why? Because they're just too dangerous. So it is for pit bulls.

Attorney-General

Michael Bryant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some say government should punish the deed, not the breed. I say, we should indeed punish the deed. And the government's proposed bill would, if passed, seriously punish irresponsible dog owners with tougher fines, doubling them to $10,000, and even jail time for extreme cases.

But we also need to face the fact that pit bulls are a breed apart. They don't scare the hell out of people because they're not always pretty; they are frightening because of the injuries they routinely inflict upon people and their pets.

Some say pit bulls aren't a breed at all, they can't be identified.

My experience is that those opposing the pit bull ban are the only ones who believe rules cannot be crafted to permit the identification of what everyone knows to be a pit bull.

In fact, Ontario intends to adopt the definition of pit bull utilized by Winnipeg in its successful pit bull ban. To be sure, if legal regulations can identify harmful emissions, dangerous pesticides and complex narcotics, we can do the same with a dog that can often be spotted (and heard) a block away.

There is an underlying ideology advanced by those opposed to the pit bull bans, arguing that dog bans are wrong. It's a fundamentalist argument that knows no exceptions.

I don't disagree that dog bans are extreme, but I would have thought that those who love animals also agree that there are some animals that do not belong in public.

We don't permit muzzled wolves on leashes in public parks. Why? Because they're just too dangerous.

So it is for pit bulls.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bryant, is Attorney-General of Ontario and MPP for the Toronto riding of St. Pauls.

mastifflover
October 21st, 2004, 12:20 PM
This guy is a total idiot and proves it every time he opens his mouth.

sammiec
October 21st, 2004, 12:22 PM
Like I said Robin, I bet I know who he's related to!

It seems as though our only recourse might be to challenge this in the courts. I feel that no matter what anyone has to say about this ban, he will put it through.... I am not sure what else we can do at this point.

I was told by a City Councilor last night that this ban is to go through. He wouldn't elaborate, but he said that Michael Bryant will get what he's after.... :sad:

Luvmypit
October 21st, 2004, 12:34 PM
someone told me those records of other cities and how the bites decreased is wrong and that it has gone up just no PB bites. I also heard that most of the info isnt even available or kept for that matter. I could be wrong

kigaro
October 21st, 2004, 12:51 PM
"Ten years ago, when I saw the 5-year-old Toronto girl whose face was savagely mauled by a pit bull, many wondered how many more children would be harmed by these incomparably vicious dogs. Ten years from now, maybe there will be no more, if this pit bull ban passes in Queen's Park."

what a joke. i'm sure the parent's of the kid whose 'family dog' (lab) bit their childs face causing alot of damage feels safer now.

nice to see he is still fear mongering.

peace

sammiec
October 21st, 2004, 12:54 PM
"Ten years ago, when I saw the 5-year-old Toronto girl whose face was savagely mauled by a pit bull, many wondered how many more children would be harmed by these incomparably vicious dogs. Ten years from now, maybe there will be no more, if this pit bull ban passes in Queen's Park."

That statement PROVES that he is acting on behalf of his OWN feelings. He's not concerned about Ontario citizens or what we feel is best. MANY people have said that singling out one breed is not the answer... even people that are not pit bull lovers...

mastifflover
October 21st, 2004, 12:59 PM
I think the courts are the only way that this idiot can be challenged. So if he instist on muzzles if your dog is not aggressive do not use one. They will write tickets and you have to go to court and tie up the courts it worked with photo radar and it will cost them a fortune to have to hear every case individually. The public will be really mad when criminals start getting off scott free cuz the courts are tied up and they dont get a speedy trial

kigaro
October 21st, 2004, 01:27 PM
That statement PROVES that he is acting on behalf of his OWN feelings. He's not concerned about Ontario citizens or what we feel is best. MANY people have said that singling out one breed is not the answer... even people that are not pit bull lovers...

exactly, i haven't fiqured it out yet, but this is a personal issue for him, and he is not being objective. he uses stats from places that have controversial bans in place, where the stats are very questionable. he even said in one interview that boulder, col had a ban. mmm...no they tried, but the governor nixed it cause the data was skewed. infact, he passed a bill restricting regions in colorado from puttin BSL in place. he always brings up these tear-drop attack stories. while i truly feel for those that were attacked, to ignore attack victims of other breeds is absurd.

i also love how he describes those who oppose BSL as fundalmentalist. what postion is he taking again? now that's callin' the kettle black, and even moreso cause he as refused or declined to meet with several reputable organizations that are far more knowelgable on the subject than he is. and i love the line about the dog that can often be spotted or heard from a block away. pits are not overly vocal dogs, and most people don't know the difference between a pit and a boxer. people often think my cousins french mastiff is a pit. onetime this lady though my staff was a vizsla. she was rubbin' the dogs belly, lettin' it lick her, and then says what a nice vizsla. when i corrected her, she had this look of shock on her face...like why didn't it bite my head off. now when i see her she always comes up to pet the dog, and admits her previous stereotypes have been softened by the warm and furry creature that like belly rubs.

and comparing a domesticated animal that will perform to how it is trained and managed to a feral animal is absured.

Writing4Fun
October 21st, 2004, 01:27 PM
Winnipeg was experiencing more than 30 serious, reported pit bull attacks a year. Today? Zero.
(Please take this very lightly - it was written with my tongue firmly planted within my cheek) Wow! Can't argue with that logic! Hmmmm...let's see. So I ride a motorcycle. There are X number of motorcycle-related accidents every year in Ontario. Solution? Let's ban motorcycles. No one is allowed to own or ride a motorcycle in Ontario ever again. In a few years, another study is done. Number of motorcycle accidents in Ontario is now at "0". Holy Cr**! What a shocker that is!! There aren't any more accidents because there aren't any more motorcycles! Gee, I never would have seen that one coming! Gimme a break! :rolleyes:

sammiec
October 21st, 2004, 01:36 PM
exactly, i haven't fiqured it out yet, but this is a personal issue for him, and he is not being objective. he uses stats from places that have controversial bans in place, where the stats are very questionable. he even said in one interview that boulder, col had a ban. mmm...no they tried, but the governor nixed it cause the data was skewed. infact, he passed a bill restricting regions in colorado from puttin BSL in place. he always brings up these tear-drop attack stories. while i truly feel for those that were attacked, to ignore attack victims of other breeds is absurd.
They actually passed a bylaw saying that they can never attempt to try and pass BSL again.

i love the line about the dog that can often be spotted or heard from a block away. pits are not overly vocal dogs, and most people don't know the difference between a pit and a boxer.
This is VERY ture, does not even bark when someone comes to the door. She ONLY barks while she's playing.... but I guess you COULD hear all the glasses crashing off the table when she wags her tail.... or her tail hitting the wall when you come home...

Akeeter
October 21st, 2004, 02:18 PM
"Do not fight it! You can not win! Other people (Overwhelmingly!) support BSL."
It's just a way of trying to destroy the initiative to fight it.

Why should you believe them, when they have been misrepresenting :evil: the situation from Day One!

kigaro
October 21st, 2004, 07:11 PM
here's quote from aileen white, the spokesperson for the winnipeg humane society i found on the cbc manitoba web site:

"It's certainly already proven within our province that if you ban a certain breed, the people that want to own this kind of tough dog, if you will, they're going to go on to the next breed,"


intersesting, very interesting.

and the solicitor general in bc regarding a recent pitbull attack on a dog that has the owners requesting a ban.:

"But Solicitor General Rich Coleman has flatly rejected any new legislation banning pit bulls in B.C., saying such a law would be clumsy and ineffective."

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_pitbull20041019

also what will happen to my home insurance if ban is passed. will they drop me? i heard some guy in calgary lost his home insurance cause allstate decided it would not ensure people with german sheppards, roti, or pitbulls.

i'm not with allstate, but will my broker make a similar move if BSL is passed?