Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

New sub forum - Breed bans - BSL - Pit Bull banning

marko
October 25th, 2004, 11:02 AM
Due to the fact that so many members are passionate about this issue, we decided it deserved its own sub-forum located in the Breed Discussion and information forum.

Please post anything connected to this issue in this new sub forum called
Breed bans - BSL - Pit Bull bans

Thanks to all who suggested it.

As with all forums on Pets.ca, there is no promotion allowed.
If you want to post a fundraising event or anything along those lines please ask the ADMIN FIRST.

Marko

LavenderRott
October 25th, 2004, 11:38 AM
Thanks Marko!

Dukieboy
October 27th, 2004, 09:37 AM
That said, it was a compelling debate. I heard from all sides. I met with municipal authorities, police officers, animal experts, groups like the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I met with national coalitions representing humane societies, veterinarians and animal control experts. I met with victims and with citizens, those great non-experts who are all experts about dogs. We've heard first-hand the accounts of many victims and the suffering experienced by their families.

I want to acknowledge and thank some people who courageously came here to Queen's Park, who have been waiting, for a long time in some cases, for this ban to be put in place, if this should pass: Darlene Wagner, Angela Joyce, Karl Vaartjes, Steven and his daughter Lindsay Grandy, Louise Ellis and her daughter Lauren, Maria De Zorzi, Diana Fischer and George Gooderham; as well, sitting in the gallery is Councillor Berry Vrbanovic, who has been a real leader in this. Thank you to all of you for coming here today.

So we've heard from the victims, we've heard from those who were opposed to pit bull bans and we've heard from the people of Ontario. This debate comes to this House as this province considers whether it will be the first to ban pit bulls, in Ontario. I would say to all honourable members in this House that I don't think any of us want to open our morning paper and see yet another picture of a young child who has been harmed, a pet who has been harmed, resulting in a pit bull being put down. We've seen enough, and enough is enough. It's time for action.

The Speaker: Response?

1400

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I wish to express, from our party, our sympathy to the victims of dog attacks, and share the desire to stop attacks in future, but we have concerns about how the Attorney General went about developing this piece of legislation.

My office has received dozens of e-mails, and almost everyone agrees that action must be taken to prevent innocent people from being attacked by dogs. Everyone is asking, what constitutes a pit bull? Experts say that the pit bull is really a breed unto itself, but refer to a number of breeds, crossbreeds, hybrids, etc.

For the purpose of enforcing this politically charged ban, how does one determine what is a pit bull? Who will be responsible for making the determination and will it stand up in court? There are people who suggest the government is taking this strong stand on pit bulls not because it feels the law will be enforceable, but because it will convince people it is taking action on a serious problem. Many pit bulls, or for that matter dogs in general, are not registered, especially in rural areas. When someone sees an unleashed dog, they might think, is it a pit bull? Who do they call? Assuming someone catches the dog, what happens next?

Many municipalities in Ontario do not have facilities to detain stray animals. Some have financial arrangements with the SPCA shelters, run principally by volunteer organizations, but these groups often operate on shoestring budgets and can't be expected to take on the responsibility of dealing with a huge influx of what your government refers to as dangerous animals. Minister, you'll have to explain to us how this ban you propose will be effective and enforceable to protect the public.

Early this morning in Toronto a 28-year-old man is recuperating from serious injuries to his hand and arm after being attacked by a dog. While police are still investigating, this report appears to support your call for a ban on pit bulls. Well, not quite. The dog involved was not a pit bull; it was a Rottweiler.

Pet owners and animal experts believe a ban on pit bulls will be just the start, that more breeds will be added as other dog attacks are reported. Over time, you might be able to include every breed in the ban. Banning the pit bull breed will not protect the public from other aggressive breeds such as Rottweilers and Dobermans. My own experience is of having being bitten by a dog in the hand as a young child, by a German shepherd. Are we going to ban that dog also? What will be the criteria in the future for banning other breeds?

In Italy, they have banned in excess of 90 breeds, and it has not solved the problem of dangerous dogs. The Attorney General says this comprehensive approach of a provincial ban will avoid a patchwork of bans by municipalities. Municipalities, I would argue, are capable of determining their community's safety, and were acting; for example, the city of Windsor. What municipalities need are the tools to do the job. Muzzling and leashing pit bulls or other dangerous dogs in public is warranted, but will not protect victims from dogs that bolt from their owner's house or property and attack a human being or other creature. Police will not charge criminally unless it be proven that the dog owner was negligent.

An example is that no charges were laid by the OPP in a recent pit bull attack where the dog bolted from a house, killing a small dog, because they could not prove owner's negligence. The Dog Owners' Liability Act does not impose strict liability offences on a dog owner whose dog bites, attacks or poses a threat to public safety. There is always the defence of due diligence, so heavier fines and jailing of dog owners are meaningless tools to protect the public if a dog owner cannot be held accountable under the law for their dog's actions.

I would say to the Attorney General that this is another example of your seat-of-the-pants approach to government. This is ill thought out, you didn't consult and you don't know how it will be policed or what it will cost. Admit it, Minister: this is a public relations show designed to give people the impression that you are doing something and to get your mug on TV.

I will say this to you, Mr Attorney General: This bill should go to committee. You should face the public in terms of what you are trying to do. Make sure that it's enforceable and that you're accountable to the public. The people in this audience here today deserve to know that this is not a sham, that they will be protected.

We have sympathy for anyone who has been bitten by a dog. We want to make sure they are protected by the law. We don't want this to be no more than the public relations exercise it already is. Do the job, Minister: Respect the public and protect them.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to offer the government that we in the official opposition would certainly be prepared to give unanimous consent to waive the printing of this bill and to begin debating it this afternoon, if you'd like.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? I don't think there's unanimous consent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, government House leader. Unanimous consent means all, and I heard a no. Response from the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This bill purports to address what we all acknowledge as a very serious problem, a problem that has taken its toll of victims, not only across Ontario but throughout North America. I have no hesitation in acknowledging that. Our exposure to this is primarily anecdotal and I think it's fair to say that the information we receive through the news media is perhaps but the tip of the iceberg. I say to this government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'll give you your time. I'm just going to say that when the Attorney General was reading his statement, it was quiet, people were polite and they were listening. Now the response from the member for Niagara Centre is not receiving the same courtesy. I ask the member from Niagara Centre to respond.

Mr Kormos: This is a serious problem that warrants serious consideration in a disciplined way in the context of this chamber and the rules and procedure of this chamber. It's far too important a matter for anybody to attempt to short-circuit the process. It's far too important a matter to folks across this province, to ensure that there is a full debate, that there is a thorough and intelligent consideration of all the data and evidence.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the people who advocate this bill as it stands now, and I would ask them not to doubt the sincerity of those who want to ensure that whatever legislation is eventually passed in this province is the most effective law, with enforceability and the capacity to have a meaningful impact on vicious dogs and attacks by vicious dogs, be they pit bulls or be they others.

I tell you, there has been serious conflict and contradictory statements made about who has and who hasn't been consulted. I'm not in a position -- nor would I want to at this point -- to identify any of the parties as being anything less than truthful from their particular perspective. But I'm concerned about the letter that appeared in this morning's Toronto Star from the president of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, one Tim Zaharchuk, who says that organization wasn't consulted.

I'm concerned there's a suggestion -- a number of columnists and journalists have been cited -- that for as many as there are who support the ban being proposed and the manner it's being proposed, there are an equal number of observers and journalists who express concerns. I'm concerned about the observation that the US Centers for Disease Control has not been adequately consulted. I'm concerned about the observation that the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has not been consulted, that the Canada Safety Council has not been effectively consulted. The people of this province deserve to hear from those parties, deserve to know what the data are, so that we as legislators can develop the best possible legislative response to, I repeat, this most serious problem.

1410

We believe as well that this matter should go to public hearings. There ought to be public committee hearings so that all parties can express their views, so that there could be a public airing of the data and the evidence and so that there can be a legitimate consideration of the effect of breed-specific bans in other jurisdictions.

I'm concerned about the conflicting reports about the effectiveness of the breed-specific bans in the United Kingdom. I'm concerned about the conflicting reports coming about places like Cincinnati or Denver, where there is some suggestion that breed bans were attempted, failed and then abandoned; if they have been, we want to understand why. If there are better ways to approach this than the manner in which this legislation does it, then we're prepared to work together to ensure that that better way is implemented.

We're concerned about municipalities and their ability to enforce this legislation. It's quite clear this is legislation that has to be enforced at the municipal level. Down where I come from, and in fact across this province, municipalities are hard-pressed to keep animal control officers on duty any more than five days a week, eight hours a day. To have a breed ban or a vicious dog ban in general is meaningless unless you've got people out there prepared to do the hard, nasty and dirty work in terms of picking up this breed.

Also, the bill clearly provides for at least one more decade of so-called pit bulls in Ontario. We're talking about the so-called grandparenting. I understand why the government would want to include that in their legislation, but I very much want to understand how that jibes with their expression of such serious concern with this one specific breed.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the spirit of co-operation that has been offered, I seek unanimous consent to put a motion, without further debate, that when this bill is called, any time this bill is called, no party can put a motion to adjourn the House or adjourn the debate without unanimous consent.

The Speaker: The government House leader put a motion forward to have unanimous consent. Do I hear unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): You're an idiot.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member from Toronto-Danforth has used unparliamentary language. Would you stand and withdraw.

Ms Churley: I withdraw, Speaker.

Dukieboy
October 27th, 2004, 09:39 AM
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED TO DOGS
STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /
LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SÉCURITÉ
PUBLIQUE RELATIVE AUX CHIENS

Mr Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 132, An Act to amend the Dog Owners' Liability Act to increase public safety in relation to dogs, including pit bulls, and to make related amendments to the Animals for Research Act / Projet de loi 132, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la responsabilité des propriétaires de chiens pour accroître la sécurité publique relativement aux chiens, y compris les pit-bulls, et apportant des modifications connexes à la Loi sur les animaux destinés à la recherche.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Minister?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'll make comments during ministers' statements, Mr Speaker.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
AND RESPONSES

PIT BULLS /
LE PIT-BULL

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I rise today to introduce legislation that, if passed, would ban pit bulls in the province of Ontario.

This action responds to the growing alarm of Ontarians over the aggressiveness and danger of these dogs; the danger that these dogs pose to public safety; the danger that these dogs pose to other animals; and the imperilling of the safety of our streets, our parks and our communities.

This is real; it is not just fear. It is fear based upon real harm caused by pit bulls against animals and victims.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Bryant: I hear from the opposition something about fearmongering. I'd like him to say that to some of the victims who are in the gallery here today who have been attacked by pit bulls. This is real, and we are going to protect Ontarians in the province of Ontario.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I just ask that the members in the gallery please do not applaud.

Hon Mr Bryant: Pit bulls have been responsible for some horribly vicious attacks on Ontarians. Since August, barely a week goes by where there's not another pit bull attack reported in the media, and my experience has been that there are many, many incidents that simply go unreported: a child playing, a man going out for an evening stroll, an infant being pushed along in a stroller, a family enjoying some peace and quiet in their backyard -- all of these circumstances and more -- a woman delivering mail to a house. It goes on and on, and we see the incidents and we see the damage done and we see the fear that it causes and we see that people don't go to certain areas or parks and streets because of this.

This government is saying enough is enough. It's time that we make amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act that make our streets safer. Ontario breeders would not be allowed to breed them. Future purchase and imports of pit bulls would be banned if this bill passes. There will be strict new requirements for people already owning pit bulls, though they won't be new for the responsible dog owner, because a responsible dog owner is already leashing and muzzling their pit bull. We are just requiring that all dog owners of pit bulls act responsibly.

Let me be clear, and this is important: Those who currently own pit bulls will, of course, be able to keep their dogs. We have said that all along. Under the regulations, each existing pit bull would also have to be leashed and muzzled when in public. The pit bull would also have to be neutered or spayed. Municipalities will be able to prescribe additional requirements in their own bylaws to reflect citizen concerns.

Our government recognizes that most dog owners are very responsible. Unfortunately, there are irresponsible dog owners in this province as well. This proposed legislation would forestall potential attacks by prosecuting owners of any dogs -- any dogs -- that pose a menace to society. An owner of any dangerous dog that bites, attacks or otherwise poses a menace to public safety could be subject to fines of up to $10,000, and for the first time, a jail term of up to six months. The legislation would also allow fines up to a maximum of $60,000 for corporations who own such dogs. The court would also be able to order the owner to pay restitution to the victim.

Notre gouvernement est résolu à édifier, dans tout l'Ontario, des collectivités fortes, à l'abri du danger. L'interdiction des pit-bulls répond justement à un besoin urgent de sécurité publique. Si cette loi était adoptée, les pit-bulls seraient bannis en Ontario.

We've seen positive results from similar bans in other jurisdictions. The most relevant and telling is the Canadian experience: 14 years ago, Winnipeg became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. Winnipeg was experiencing over 30 serious reported pit bull attacks a year; today, zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks a year, and in a few short years since the ban came in, thanks to the leadership of their mayor and to Councillor Berry Vrbanovic, who is in the gallery today, they now have about one pit bull attack a year in Kitchener.

This means that people in those cities who otherwise would be subject to the repeated attacks of pit bulls are instead spared serious injury, and the same goes for their pets. Even more interestingly, dog bites in Winnipeg went down over the course of the pit bull ban, refuting the hypothesis that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by banned pit bulls.

In Ontario, in addition to Kitchener-Waterloo, Windsor has a ban in place, and Brantford is moving toward one after its city council voted to ban pit bulls. Toronto is re-examining the issue following a recent and particularly horrifying attack, as are other municipalities.

I've heard from municipal leaders from Windsor to Wawa, all asking for the provincial government to show leadership on this public safety issue, and your government is answering that call today. I'm thinking of people like Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr, who said, "Every Ontarian in every city across Ontario deserves the same level of safety that we have in Kitchener. That's what this legislation would do."

Toronto Mayor David Miller has said that he supports the province's swift action. He said, "This problem is not exclusive to any single municipality; it is a province-wide issue and therefore the best solution is a province-wide strategy to keep Ontarians safe from dangerous dogs."

Mayor Rod Morrison from Wawa has said, "Protecting the public from the menace of pit bulls and toughening up on owners of dangerous dogs that attack is in the best interest of all people in every town, city and community across Ontario."

Chief Fantino has said, "This proposed ban will help my officers and police services across Ontario keep our community safe from dangerous dogs."

Ontario municipalities are speaking out. They're saying they don't want a patchwork of pit bull bans across Ontario. They need province-wide leadership so there is not one level of public safety in one area and one level of public safety in another. Instead, what we need to have across the province is the kind of safety these mayors and leaders have shown and that this government is attempting here in this Legislature today.

There is support across the province. It's not unanimous support, but let's hear about some of it. This is from the Hamilton Spectator: "The broader public interest is well served by the proposed ban." The London Free Press said, "We've seen enough," and it's time for a ban on pit bulls. The Toronto Star said it's time to ban pit bulls. Jim Coyle wrote, "Amen to the ban on pit bulls." Toronto Sun columnist Bob MacDonald said it's "doing the right thing to ban pit bulls in Ontario." The Globe and Mail said, "...implementing the ban will be difficult. Public safety is worth the effort. It's a move long overdue." The National Post said the "suggested ban should be enacted."

With this legislation, our government would set the province-wide standard and eliminate the need for a patchwork of municipal bans. We would be the first province or state across the continent to put this ban in place. I believe we are showing leadership here, and it is to the safety of all Ontarians. While municipalities would maintain principal authority for dog control, as they do, the province will ensure that all Ontarians will receive uniform protection. This will protect municipal authorities while protecting Ontarians. I thank municipal leaders for their support.

We are continuing discussions with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and with the city of Toronto to ensure that working together will make the proposed ban work effectively for all.

The reaction to this debate has been overwhelming. I've received more than 5,000 -- almost 6,000 -- e-mails and letters about pit bulls. The message is clear: A majority clearly support pit bull bans. Hearing from the public was a really powerful and influential factor in the decision to ban pit bulls. Clearly, there are many unreported pit bull incidents, and clearly, there is not just fear over it, but justified fear. There is a great silent majority that is being heard on this issue and their government is listening.

LavenderRott
October 27th, 2004, 09:57 AM
It seems to me like Canada is fast becoming a communist country!

According to the new bill, a police officer can come into your home and "by whatever means necessary" remove your dog if they have reports that your dog is menacing. Or if they think your dog is menacing. Breed here doesn't matter and there is no court involved.

So you better hope that you don't live next to someone who hates all dogs. I wonder if this means that if you strongly object to someone removing your dog they can shoot it in your living room? That is sure what is sounds like.

Sounds to me like Canadians are fast loosing their rights to such simple things as due process. If police officers can come into your home with no warrant because of your dog, why do they need a warrant if they think you are actually commiting a crime?

Dukieboy
October 28th, 2004, 03:32 PM
If you can't attend the Board of Health Mtg ( Nov 22, 2004) you can send your letter to:

Board of Health, City of Toronto
Attention Mary Caroll, Committee Administrator
City Clerks Office
City Hall
West Tower
4th Floor
Toronto On
Don't know the postal code

and she will ensure that it gets on the agenda

Luvmypit
October 28th, 2004, 04:11 PM
Why is this in this thread. I didn't even know this was here because its in a thread that is really just to direct us to a new sub forum. Please move atleast the full context of the assembly the other day.

Pack Mom
December 31st, 2004, 10:55 AM
The NCCPD has created a brief online survey regarding Bill 132. If
you would like to register your opinion, please go to
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=27938736749. Anyone wishing to track the results of the NCCPD Survey on Bill 132
can log on to http://www.surveymonkey.com/Report.asp?U=73674921851.

NCCPD has also created a sample letter to Dalton McGuinty. If anyone would like a copy, let me know and I will post it.

Happy New Year everyone. Let's hope it is one without BSL

hennessey
June 25th, 2006, 11:29 PM
I personally own 2 pits and know they can be aggressive dogs. I was bit one week ago by a dog i'd been around for years. Everybody always singles out the pits, but u never hear about any other dog attacks. Any dog can be aggressive, it all depends on how the dogs are raised. I know of a little fiest that will attack you faster than a pitt. My pits love kids, never harmed anybody, and are very gentle. If people would keep their dogs chained or pinned up they would not have to worry about any dog attacking anybody.

Prin
June 26th, 2006, 10:47 PM
What? :confused: I'm confused. You love your dogs and you think chaining them up is a solution to dog attacks? What's the point of having a dog if it's going to spend its life chained up? How will they socialize if their tied up all the time? :confused: :confused:

Beigh
July 11th, 2006, 10:01 PM
I have seen this ban bull**** debated so many times now that its beginning to make me a little ill. How can anyone out there claim that one breed should be banned due to some poor media coverage on the breed where the news paints the breed as monsters.

Every dog owner knows that every breed has had examples of attacks and just the larger breeds seem to end up on the news or in the papers. When was the last time anyone here about a Pom that attack someone? As some one who has had them in the past they are alot more agressive than some of the large dogs that I've had and they bite just as hard if not worst due to they usually bite like 5-6 times more than larger dogs.

Our government need to stop putting bans on breeds and start regulating who can have a dog with restrictions and stricter fines and possible jail time is an owner allows they dog to be placed in a position where they can be a danger to someone.

Luvmypit
July 12th, 2006, 01:22 PM
Thanks Beigh. I ofcourse agree.

jennypop3
July 24th, 2006, 09:51 AM
I have a 2 yeard old son. My brother in law has a pit-bull and a shihtzu. My son has been bit twice by the shihtzu and not once from his pit-bull. I would much rather leave my son around the pit-bull than the shihtzu. His pit-bull is very well mannered, and loves people. I've only heard this dog bark twice, and have never heard him growl. The dog is about the same age as my son.

krisc83
December 7th, 2006, 05:05 PM
I have a 2 yeard old son. My brother in law has a pit-bull and a shihtzu. My son has been bit twice by the shihtzu and not once from his pit-bull. I would much rather leave my son around the pit-bull than the shihtzu. His pit-bull is very well mannered, and loves people. I've only heard this dog bark twice, and have never heard him growl. The dog is about the same age as my son.

People like you REALLY need to speak out. Please state this in a letter and send it to your city officials. It cant hurt, and if we all do it, it might even help.

Saber
January 2nd, 2007, 09:35 PM
My older brother has always had Pitbulls for dogs and they all have always been very sweet and have never once bit a person.

Right now my brother has a two year old female pit and He has a 4 year old daughter who plays with the dog, lays her on, jumps around with her, can get right up in her face and the dog has never once done anything aggressive nor has she even gave off a warning like "you better get out of my face!" growl or bark. and he has another kid on the way.

Just like any other type of breed if the dog is not raised right, it will not act right. Any breed can be aggressive not just pits.

tammycook01
January 10th, 2007, 12:40 PM
I have a 13 month old American Pitbull Terrier, Who is a people person and also love other dogs. His name Is Taz and he's a house dog. My 3 year old grandson thinks he's a horse and rides his back all the time. My grandson acts just like him, it's not the terrible 2's it's the terrible 3's. Both are very active and playful. It's all in how you raise your pet. I feel if you keep them chained up and don't let them socialize they will be aggressive.

paula383
January 15th, 2007, 09:53 AM
http://www.bull-breed-defenders.org.uk/Index.html i saw this link on another pet site. its a fantastic site. x

DiNKy
January 17th, 2007, 12:53 AM
i used to think pit bulls were the meanest, most ficious dogs. not from my own experience; just from what i'd heard about them. then about six years ago, i met my husband, and what did he have, yup, his very own red nose pit bull named Ceaser. Needless to say, i was terrified of this dog, and he could sense my uneasiness. so everytime Ceaser was around me, he'd either jump on my lap, or lay by my feet. he was the sweetest, biggest lap dog i'd ever met. perfectly house trained and wonderful with kids. he was purchased by my husband in las vegas, nevada. although after he passed on, we purchased another pit in corpus christi, texas where we live. her name was Porscha. however when she became a young adult, she started peering at you when you walked by and practically getting in attack position. but once she growled at my daughter, we took her to a pet shelter. i told them how she was acting; i couldnt risk her hurting my daughter. we've never owned a pit since. but i dont discourage buying one. just be smart, we didnt pay a lot for Porscha, and she wasnt from any well breed bloodline. Ceaser, however, was registered in Nevada and came from an excellent bloodline. so i think, when your wanting to by a pit bull, which is an animal that has been known to turn on its owner, check the bloodline. no matter how well you raise your pit, the bloodline it came from, i feel, has a lot to do with how the dog will turn out. unfortunately, the courts arent harder on animal cruelty, especially when it comes to pits. i think, if your breeding a pit to fight, and the dog has to be put down, then so should the owner that made him that way. maybe then people would think twice about breeding them for such horrible purposes. the courts need to stop fining people, thats the biggest load of crap. you can sell one bred to fight pit and then turn around and pay your fine for breeding it.

Odieandmaggiesd
January 17th, 2007, 09:04 AM
Dinky...where is the proof that they areknown to turnon their owners??
The only dog that would ever turn on it's people is a dog that was mistreated...I know of one person who's dog turned on him and he used tohit the dog to punish...well being a bully dog...after a while the dog realised he couldtake it and decided to show the guy what he could do....there are no bad dogs...only bad people with dogs...

DiNKy
January 17th, 2007, 02:57 PM
it depends on your location i guess. i live in corpus christi texas, and every dog attack or report of a dog turning on its owner has been a pit bull. and not all the owners were mean. take porscha for instance, my husband and i were great to her. but i could tell she was not right and she would have turned on us if we had kept her. and that would not of been the fault of a "bad owner" but the fault of years of bad breeding. like i said before, i feel it mainly depends on the bloodline. you could have a completely unabused puppy, but if its mamma was beaten, and the mamma before that, and the mamma before that and so on, then yes, theres a good chance, that puppy will turn regardless of how you treat it, because its in its bloodline.

Prin
January 19th, 2007, 10:35 PM
Every dog is a pitbull because the media says it is. Most of the time they're not pitbulls at all. Like this ugly bugger. He's not even close to being a pitty and all over the news he was.

Prin
January 19th, 2007, 10:38 PM
but if its mamma was beaten, and the mamma before that, and the mamma before that and so on, then yes, theres a good chance, that puppy will turn regardless of how you treat it, because its in its bloodline.
And btw, abuse isn't genetic. Just because a dog is abused doesn't mean its offspring will "turn". If the dog is an aggressive dog naturally, then yes, maybe the offspring will be too, but that goes for every breed. And who breeds aggressive dogs? You guessed it crappy owners. ;)

DiNKy
January 20th, 2007, 12:18 AM
If the dog is an aggressive dog naturally, then yes, maybe the offspring will be too

thats what i was trying to say. dogs can easily become aggressive by years of abuse. then you breed the aggressive dog and you have a chance of getting an aggressive puppy. and this may not be the case where everyone else is from. but where i live in south texas, it is sad the way pits are treated. there are so many in our rescue shelters down here. and most of them are there because they were taken away from 'bad owners'. but they've just been abused and bred over and over again so many times that most of the dogs can't be around cats, other dogs, or children; which doesnt make them an ideal dog for adoption (in south texas). i'm not saying all pits are bad, i used to own a great pit (Ceaser), i'm just saying after the experience i had with Porsha, i understand both sides of the pit bull controversy.

Prin
January 20th, 2007, 01:31 PM
No, I mean, if a dog is BORN aggressive, then it could be genetic and could be passed on. If a dog is abused and becomes aggressive, that is not genetic and doesn't imply the offspring will be aggressive.

DiNKy
January 20th, 2007, 03:45 PM
i'm tired of discussing this. i have had one good pit:) , and one not so good pit:sad: . so, (like i said) i do understand both sides of the pit bull controversy. i, in no way, agree with breed bans. i feel most pits overall are good dogs. i do, however, feel there should be some kind of state regulating when it comes to pit bull breeding. nothing drastic, just a much more thorough background check of the breeder, and harsher punishments given to those who abuse their pit, or breed it to fight. and with that said, better state regulating shouldnt just apply to pit bulls alone, but all breeds.

Prin
January 20th, 2007, 03:56 PM
That's exactly it. There are good ones and bad ones, just like in EVERY breed out there. So there's no reason to target pitbulls.

DiNKy
January 20th, 2007, 04:29 PM
thats what i've been trying to say, sorry for all the confusion:eek:

jesse's mommy
January 20th, 2007, 05:30 PM
But Dinky, the whole point of this is that it can happen to ANY dog, not just pitbulls. You keep singling pitties out and that's what is wrong with your posts. It can happen to any dog, not just pitties. The media portrays that it is just pitbulls and uneducated people pick up on that and just agree with it without any concrete proof.

wdawson
January 20th, 2007, 08:08 PM
in my area the next breed is the rotti......it's bad owners and breeders that are the problem......breed bans will never work......that type of ban leaves the door open to add and add and add more breeds......the jack or golden is next.

DiNKy
January 20th, 2007, 09:07 PM
But Dinky, the whole point of this is that it can happen to ANY dog, not just pitbulls. You keep singling pitties out and that's what is wrong with your posts. It can happen to any dog, not just pitties. The media portrays that it is just pitbulls and uneducated people pick up on that and just agree with it without any concrete proof.

i have not been singling out pit bulls, i've only stated my previous experiences with 2 particular pits (noticably noting, noone commented on the good story). you cant justify one dogs actions (whatever breed it may be) by stating that it could happen to any other breed. and then in that same breath think nothing should be done about it. which is why i stated earlier my opinion on state regulating all breeds, not just pits. i'm sorry but i really dont think your comment towards me was necessary.

Prin
January 20th, 2007, 11:59 PM
She's not attacking you. She's just correcting the misinformation. You say you're just talking about your experience with two dogs, yet your post above makes horrible generalizations. Like this:

by a pit bull, which is an animal that has been known to turn on its ownerThat is not true at all and nobody here wants people to leave here thinking that's true.

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 12:31 AM
i dont find anything wrong with that quote. pit bulls can turn on their owner for no reason, and i feel that way because of my own personal experience, not because i saw it on the news!

Prin
January 21st, 2007, 12:34 AM
It's just not true. :shrug: Pitbulls, just like any other breed, aren't likely to "turn" on their owners. And your dog never turned on you either. You thought she might and either put her to sleep or got rid of her. You'll never know if she would have "turned" or not.

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 12:59 AM
i DID NOT put my dog to sleep. but i felt it was best to take her to a shelter since the second my back was turned, she would lower her head crouch down and growl. thats not normal for a good dog to do. i even thought that maybe it would pass, but when she started doing the same thing to my daughter who at the time was only 1 1/2 yrs old i realized something was wrong. and i would hope anyone else in this situation would do the same thing instead of being so closeminded to thinking that a dog, if raised a certain way could not possibly turn on its owner, or in my case, harm my child!

Prin
January 21st, 2007, 01:17 AM
So you thought you were in danger, so you brought her to a shelter where some unsuspecting family would adopt her not knowing anything about her? :confused:

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 01:27 AM
So you thought you were in danger, so you brought her to a shelter where some unsuspecting family would adopt her not knowing anything about her? :confused:

i dont know how the local shelters work in montreal, but down here there are 2 kinds. both do temperment testing and determine if the animal is good with cats, other dogs, and children. however some of the shelters do put a dog down if it doesn't pass a temperment test. but neither my husband nor i wanted to take her to one of those shelters. so she went to a local one that i am familiar with. they take in all dogs that they can, and if they do not pass a temperment test they keep them at their facility for the remainder of their lives.

Prin
January 21st, 2007, 01:29 AM
And did she pass?

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 02:30 AM
(sorry i had to log off my computer was freaking out) no, she didnt pass, but i know the owner, shes in good hands. but its been about two years since i've checked on her.

Prin
January 21st, 2007, 03:01 AM
So she failed but they adopted her out anyway? :confused:

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 03:21 AM
no, she wasnt adopted out to anyone, what i meant was i know the owner of the shelter.

jesse's mommy
January 21st, 2007, 09:22 AM
What formal training/behaviourist did you take her to? Not to be mean, but a lot of times, dogs fail because of their owners. (And please notice that I said dogs and not pitties, because as I stated before, it can be any dog.)

Jesse chose us, we didn't choose her. I guess in your case, it truly was not a good match. :shrug:

phoenix
January 21st, 2007, 12:09 PM
Hey guys, I think in any breed there is the occasional wingy dog that is just not wired right. If there was a child in possible danger, I don't think anyone could or should be judging the poster about their actions. However, I'm not sure it's kinder to have the dog live out its life in a shelter rather than having it put to sleep.
Point being, that this could happen within any breed when bad breeding, byb, etc happens... but it DOES happen and it's not necessarily the fault of the owner (except maybe for not researching and purchasing carefully).

Prin
January 21st, 2007, 12:12 PM
It does happen, ok. But to say that it happened because the dog was a pitty... *shakes head*

pitgrrl
January 21st, 2007, 12:49 PM
they take in all dogs that they can, and if they do not pass a temperment test they keep them at their facility for the remainder of their lives.

I was really trying to stay out of this, but I just have to say that I find this really awful. Obviously we can all sit back and theorize about whether your dog was truely unsound or if with some proffessional help and patience her behvior could have been dealt with, but lets, for a moment, assume she was truely of unsound temperment.
Clearly you were not prepared for the extreme level of management and responsibiltiy owning a dog like tht would require, which is fine, but why, why, why is it better for this dog to spend the next 10+ years at a shelter?
It makes the owner feel better that the dog is still alive, but is it really better for the dog?
I realize what's done is done at this point, and that with a breed whose reputation is in so much trouble sometimes really hard decisions have to be made, but I would hate to think that anyone reading this would see bringing an unsound dog to a no-kill shelter is a viable, compassionate or responsible solution.

I would also urge you, as others have already mentionned, not to use your own experiences to make generalizations about an entire breed. It seems as though your past fear of these dogs, and your experience, has left you with a pretty significant distrust of pit bulls, as you seem to imply in your posts that a sound pit bull is almost an exception to the rule. A fear, though perhaps understandlable, is not necessarily reality however.

phoenix
January 21st, 2007, 03:19 PM
great post pitgrrl :thumbs up

jesse's mommy
January 21st, 2007, 05:23 PM
I have to agree, great post pitgrrl! :highfive:

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 07:52 PM
i'm sorry i cant say this same story about another breed of dog (i've only owned 2 pits, and now a doxie). but i never said this could only happen with pit bulls. all i have simply been trying to do from the start is say:

but it DOES happen and it's not necessarily the fault of the owner (except maybe for not researching and purchasing carefully).

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 07:59 PM
Clearly you were not prepared for the extreme level of management and responsibiltiy owning a dog like tht would require, which is fine, but why, why, why is it better for this dog to spend the next 10+ years at a shelter?



you're right i was not prepared to have my dog do what she did. i dont think any good owner prepares themselves for when their dog will start to turn on them. but i was prepared for the management and responsibility of owning a pit bull (i had owned one before). and as for the choice i made regarding her life. it may have not been the best choice, but i had owned her for a while and i didnt want her to just die. and maybe i did make the wrong choice :sad: , thats probably why i quit going to check on her. i'm not going to argue that i made the right decision, i honestly just didnt know what to do.

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 08:16 PM
I would also urge you, as others have already mentionned, not to use your own experiences to make generalizations about an entire breed.

i never made generalizations about pit bulls, my other dog, Ceaser was a great pit. but noone wanted to hear about him. and all i tried saying, once again, from the start, is that a dogs breeding does factor in on how a dog will turn out.

Prin
January 21st, 2007, 08:19 PM
I've already pointed out one of the generalizations you made, so you can't hardly say you didn't make any.;)

wdawson
January 21st, 2007, 08:25 PM
i'm so sick of the media stories and people coming here , just to blame certain breeds , when in fact it most often is the original poster that is the problem....ie: i got rid of a dog cause i think its aggresive,but i never put it down,i put it into a shelter.....between the media and ignorant people certain breed don't stand a chance.....oh did i say certain breeds....i mean all breeds.

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 08:44 PM
I've already pointed out one of the generalizations you made, so you can't hardly say you didn't make any.;)

ok, what i had meant was, yes a pitbull has been known to turn on its owner, you've seen it on the news, but the news gets it wrong sometimes, like you pointed out earlier. but the media is not always wrong, i've watched the news where it was a pitbull that was being taken by animal control, and i've seen them accuse a boxer of being a pit. thus its not only pit bulls that can turn on their owners, but other breeds as well. but this is a pit bull forum, and i was only trying to inform people that come here to read about pit bulls, that it can happen and to research the breeders thoroughly. but as everyone has stated, it doesnt just apply to pits, but to all breeds. but like i said this is a pit bull forum, so i am discussing pit bulls.

jesse's mommy
January 21st, 2007, 08:58 PM
ok, what i had meant was, yes a pitbull has been known to turn on its owner, you've seen it on the news, but the news gets it wrong sometimes, like you pointed out earlier.....but like i said this is a pit bull forum, so i am discussing pit bulls.

But what you won't understand or accept is that ANY dog can turn on their owner, not just pits. How many times do we have to repeat this? It's like a broken record. The media pretty much only reports pit attacks, not many others. Again, IT'S HOW THE DOG IS RAISED!!! This isn't necessarily a pitbull forum within the board, but a forum to discuss BSL that is in effect in a lot of places in Canada and the US. We are trying to fight it here. Think about it, which breed is next on the list aside from the obvious Rotti, Dogo, Dobie, GSD? Look in Italy, they have Corgi's banned! Who knows, your precious little Doxie may be on the list.

Prin
January 21st, 2007, 09:02 PM
Any breed of dog can turn, yeah, but I also don't want people thinking that all dogs turn. There has to be something seriously wrong with a dog for it to attack like that. 99.9% of dogs don't TURN ever. Some become aggressive because of lack of training and all that, sure, but they don't "turn" all of a sudden. Dogs are not unpredictable most of the time, unless there is something neurologically wrong.

And in Dinky's case, the dog never turned, so IMO it was just lack of training.

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 09:05 PM
But what you won't understand or accept is that ANY dog can turn on their owner, not just pits.

i just said that earlier.

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 09:10 PM
Any breed of dog can turn, yeah, but I also don't want people thinking that all dogs turn.
And in Dinky's case, the dog never turned, so IMO it was just lack of training.

i dont want people thinking that all dogs turn, i just want people knowing that its a possibility. and the 2 factors that cause that are how you raise a dog and how it was bred. anyone can raise a dog right, thats why i urge a better background check of the breeder. thats all, i dont see the whats wrong with that. and you already know my opinion in porsha's case, do we really need to keep bringing her up?

Prin
January 21st, 2007, 09:13 PM
But in Porsha's case, she never did turn and is doing fine now, right? So the breed is fine, the trainer she's with now is fine... So you technically have no experience of even the possibility of your dog turning on you because frankly, she would have done it by now.

jesse's mommy
January 21st, 2007, 09:13 PM
You are the one who brought this up. You are the one who threadjacked the sticky. You are the one who is arguing nothing. You've only been pointing out myths and not contributing anything positive or true to this. Nothing you have been discussing is on topic with the original subject. All we are doing is replying to you to point out the truth for future members. People rely on this information and it needs to be true.

pitgrrl
January 21st, 2007, 09:29 PM
and the 2 factors that cause that are how you raise a dog and how it was bred.

......and there's a perfect arguement for getting an adult dog from an ethical rescue :D

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 09:30 PM
But in Porsha's case, she never did turn and is doing fine now, right?

i only said she is in good hands and failed the temperment tests therefore she could not be adopted out (because the professionals at the shelter decided she was not safe enough) i did however talk to the owner (of the shelter) from time to time to ask how she was doing. and for the most part i guess she is doing fine as long as she is kept there, and not given to a family.

DiNKy
January 21st, 2007, 09:34 PM
You are the one who threadjacked the sticky.

sorry, i didnt mean to do that. i had read a few short threads before i posted mine. they were just peoples storys about there pits. so i added mine

Odieandmaggiesd
January 24th, 2007, 01:11 PM
There's other reason's a dog can turn...like health..I had a boser who was about 10 years old, I had to put him down...his hind legs were bad and he couldn't go up stairs or up on the couch anymore...and it came to a point where he just got tired of it...He attacked a few people, luckily I caught him before he could do any harm to anyone...Putting him down was the hardestthing Iever did...the last thing he ever did was give me a kiss...(I like to think he was thanking me) he never even got to bring his big juicy tongue back in....(wipes a tear)....

The problem I have here is that you said..pitbulls are known to turn...but they aren't...in fact they are known for their rock-solid temperment...in your case I'm guesing the dog was about 1 year and a half old or so...and was most likely tryint to re-assert her position in the familly pack...I went through this twice, once with Odie and once with Maggie...through vigilant leadership and a close eye, they have found their places and I trust them 100% around anyone and everyone....

as for the headlines...it's pretty bad when if the attack comes form a "non-bully" breed that the headline will read a dog attacked so and so...but if a pit-bull attacked a burglar while defending his 85 year old mum...it's a "PIT-BULL ATTACK"....not dog saves owner....

Bucketz
March 9th, 2007, 10:25 AM
MIDDLETOWN CITY COUNCIL

Pit bulls no longer banned from city
Amended ordinance prohibits chaining animals.
Click-2-Listen
By Ed Richter

Staff Writer

Thursday, March 08, 2007

MIDDLETOWN — An amended dog ordinance bans chaining animals and beefs up penalties for irresponsible pet owners.

Middletown City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved the amended ordinance that also eliminated breed-specific designation of pit bulls as vicious dogs.

Extras
Latest headlines
Bluffton baseball player dies a week after bus crash that killed 6 others
Fatal bus crash re-enacted
Calls to 911 reveal calm, but surprise at bus wreck reports
Pilot makes emergency landing at Butler County Regional Airport
Votto's homer won't get him to first base
Get latest headlines via RSS feeds
Carol Collier, a resident who spoke in support of the amended ordinance, said she has "Yorkies that are more vicious than pit bulls."

"I believe if you have love for an animal you will not keep it chained," she said. "I believe (dog owners) should be made responsible. Somebody needs to stand up for these animals."

A member of the committee who helped develop the amended ordinance, Leland Gordon, executive director of Animal Friends Humane Society in Trenton, said of pit bulls, "We don't want to judge a book by its cover. If you own a pit bull, please be more responsible."

Gordon also voiced his support for the measure against tethering, saying "it's a terrible life living on a chain."

Last September, several residents questioned the "breed-specific" designation of pit bulls as vicious. Also, an Ohio appellate court declared Toledo's breed-specific law unconstitutional, according to a staff report from city Law Director Les Landen.

A committee was formed consisting of Vice Mayor Anthony "Tony" Marconi, Councilwoman Laura Williams, Animal Control Officer Liz Lucas, Kim Sterling, a former dog warden, Matthew Heller, a local veterinarian, Gordon and Landen, who worked several months to restructure the city's ordinances regarding dogs.

The ordinance was amended to include:

• Increasing the penalties for repeat offenders allowing their dogs to run at large and including spay and neutering for the dogs for repeat offenders.

• Eliminating the breed-specific designation of pit bulls as vicious dogs.

• A definition of dangerous dogs to include an unprovoked attack and injury of another dog.

• Adding provisions to the code to limit and regulate outdoor tethering of dogs.

• Eliminating prohibitions of owning pit bulls in the city.

Prin
March 9th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Woo! Good luck! :goodvibes:

therufflife
March 9th, 2007, 10:11 PM
Hello everyone! I am new here! My Name is Monique & this thread has deeply touched me! I used to have a Red Nose Pit. To this day he was the best dog I have EVER worked with. I am a dog trainer, and work with tons of breeds....none have which have compared so far.:pawprint:
My view on this topic is: Bans are only going to stop the people who give Pits (any breed for that matter) a "good" name. The people who for years have only had these dogs as tough, fighting, & mean dogs...and give them a bad name....will always have them. No matter if there is a ban or not. :shrug:
The problem out there is the LACK OF EDUCATION! for owners, and observers. Here is a great site, most people who acuse "Pit Bulls" of being the aggressor cant pick them out in this line up...can you?
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
This is a great website to send out to all your dog loving friends, see if you can pick out the right dog.:confused:

babyrocky1
March 9th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Hi there Therufflife, I think we like you already!

babyrocky1
March 9th, 2007, 10:46 PM
MIDDLETOWN CITY COUNCIL

Pit bulls no longer banned from city
Amended ordinance prohibits chaining animals.
Click-2-Listen
By Ed Richter

Staff Writer

Thursday, March 08, 2007

MIDDLETOWN — An amended dog ordinance bans chaining animals and beefs up penalties for irresponsible pet owners.

Middletown City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved the amended ordinance that also eliminated breed-specific designation of pit bulls as vicious dogs.

Extras
Latest headlines
Bluffton baseball player dies a week after bus crash that killed 6 others
Fatal bus crash re-enacted
Calls to 911 reveal calm, but surprise at bus wreck reports
Pilot makes emergency landing at Butler County Regional Airport
Votto's homer won't get him to first base
Get latest headlines via RSS feeds
Carol Collier, a resident who spoke in support of the amended ordinance, said she has "Yorkies that are more vicious than pit bulls."

"I believe if you have love for an animal you will not keep it chained," she said. "I believe (dog owners) should be made responsible. Somebody needs to stand up for these animals."

A member of the committee who helped develop the amended ordinance, Leland Gordon, executive director of Animal Friends Humane Society in Trenton, said of pit bulls, "We don't want to judge a book by its cover. If you own a pit bull, please be more responsible."

Gordon also voiced his support for the measure against tethering, saying "it's a terrible life living on a chain."

Last September, several residents questioned the "breed-specific" designation of pit bulls as vicious. Also, an Ohio appellate court declared Toledo's breed-specific law unconstitutional, according to a staff report from city Law Director Les Landen.

A committee was formed consisting of Vice Mayor Anthony "Tony" Marconi, Councilwoman Laura Williams, Animal Control Officer Liz Lucas, Kim Sterling, a former dog warden, Matthew Heller, a local veterinarian, Gordon and Landen, who worked several months to restructure the city's ordinances regarding dogs.

The ordinance was amended to include:

• Increasing the penalties for repeat offenders allowing their dogs to run at large and including spay and neutering for the dogs for repeat offenders.

• Eliminating the breed-specific designation of pit bulls as vicious dogs.

• A definition of dangerous dogs to include an unprovoked attack and injury of another dog.

• Adding provisions to the code to limit and regulate outdoor tethering of dogs.

• Eliminating prohibitions of owning pit bulls in the city.

Where the heck is Middleton, Rocky and I are packing hahahhah! No not really well stay here and fight til we WIN laws like that here!

jesse's mommy
March 9th, 2007, 11:39 PM
Where the heck is Middleton, Rocky and I are packing hahahhah! No not really well stay here and fight til we WIN laws like that here!

You're welcome in Florida anytime! :thumbs up

brooke150558
March 14th, 2007, 05:30 PM
they are so cute. i just dont get why people hate them so much. most of the people ive met that dont like them havent even met one just heard stories. i had a rottweiler (R.I.P. Bear. we all miss you so much you big goof) who was absolutely one of the best dogs in the world and would not hurt a fly. and everyone was scared of him just because of how he looked.

i think it depends on the owner and the conditions a dog is raised in that determines whether a dog is mean or not.

personally its the small dogs you should be more worried about. once when we were walking our rottweiler another couple walked by with a couple of pugs and they attacked him. bear just stood looking at us like nothing was happening while these two beasts were trying eat him lol. dont worry nobody was hurt.

i guess in the end the lesson is dont judge a breed by what it looks like

daisy may
November 4th, 2007, 09:56 AM
I owned a rotti for 12 years, she has been by far the best kids dog I have had yet. In BC many places have strict regulations. In Kamloops you must have The "vicious" breeds muzzled, tied and caged (in vehicles) whenever in public places. We stopped going there. My rotti is a kind and loving dog and would not understand this kind of treatment. Instead of banning breeds may be the should ban some breeders who are irresponsible. If the puppys show signs of abnormal aggression they should be distroyed then and not used in a breeding program. Responsible owners make good dogs.
A friend of ours breeds border collies and refuses to sell them to just anyone- you must be willing to put the work and time into the breed (they are VERY high energy). If you can't prove that you will be keeping the dog active he won't sell you one. We need more breeders like him.

Dingo
November 13th, 2007, 12:17 PM
While I agree that breed-specific bans are problematic, I'm not convinced by those who claim that Pit Bulls aren't aggressive or dangerous.

From Wikipedia:

A study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association in September, 2000 reports that in the 20 years studied (1979 to 1998) "Pit-bull type dogs" and Rottweilers were involved in one half of approximately 300 dog bite related fatalities in the US [http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf]. Another study of American and Canadian dog bite related fatalities from September 1982 to November 2006 produced similar results, reporting that Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% fatal dog attacks [http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf]. This study also noted: "Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children." and "They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized."

marko
November 13th, 2007, 12:36 PM
I think you'll find Dingo that most people on our board subscribe to the idea that bad owners make bad dogs and that there are VERY few bad dogs.

It is my personal experience that pitbulls in general are very friendly with people. I know of quite a few families that have pitbulls and kids and have NO problems.

Is it possible to have a killer pitbull? Yes. It is also possible a human child to become a sociopath, but it happens RARELY. When it does happen though, it makes the news. Same with Pitbulls.

Is it equally possible to have a killer (add your big dog breed of choice here)? Yes.

Generally when you group obedience train dogs, take them to vets when they need them, give them love, food attention, exercise, you get a good dog.
Neglect the above and your chances GREATLY increase that you get a dog with problems regardless of breed.

:2cents:

Dingo
November 13th, 2007, 02:19 PM
I think that last response is a tad disingenuous. I believe that bad owners make bad dogs as well, but I also believe that there are other factors.

In the case of Pit Bulls there are two problems. Pit Bulls and their relatives were created as fighting dogs, so understandably they're often dog aggressive. They're often described as "dominant," "suspicious of strangers," "natural guard dogs" and other euphemisms designed to distract from their general tendency towards aggression. Breeders are partly to blame for not paying enough attention to temperament, or for encouraging this type of "dominance" and "suspicion."

Of course, well cared for, well trained dogs belonging to responsible owners are rarely a problem, but the image of pit bulls as scary and aggressive is unfortunately what draws some irresponsible people to them. Unfortunately, some people choose Pit Bulls (and Preso Canarios, and Rottweilers and similar breeds) precisely because of their scary image.

On the other hand, training can only go so far. Good luck training a Border Collie not to herd or a retriever not to fetch, for example.

My personal experience with Pit Bulls has been different from your own. Several years ago, two Pit Bulls who lived on my street escaped their yard and mauled a young girl, nearly killing her and tearing off most of her face in the process. Last month, a friend's dog was nearly killed, and her husband was attacked, by a Pit Bull belonging to their neighbour that got off its leash. I've also frequently seen Pit Bulls behaving aggressively towards other dogs, including my own, at dog parks and in other public areas.

Of course, everyone's experience will be different. That's why I provided statistics that show that Pit Bull breeds and mixes are disproportionately represented in serious attacks on human children and adults: more than 1100 of 2209 recorded attacks in the US and Canada between 1982 and 2006, according to one study. Compare that to just over 400 for Rottweilers and mixes, fewer than 100 for German Shepards and mixes, 11 for Dobermans, 1 for Poodles.

So while I have problems with vague breed-specific legislation, I also think it's foolish to take a head in the sand approach as well. Perhaps the legislation should be addressing issues like breeding, muzzling, leashing, containing and training requirements for breeds known to be problematic, and for their owners, rather than outright bans. Or maybe they're right, and certain breeds with a documented propensity to human aggression should not be propagated, at least not according to the current standard. Clearly one serious attack by a Poodle over 24 years can be seen as an anomaly; more than 1100 attacks by Pit Bulls in the same period, representing over 50% of recorded attacks, seems more like a trend.

marko
November 13th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

Your last post talks about dog bites so I assumed you are referring to people.
This post talks about aggression toward other dogs - TOTALLY different story. I think in order to come to logical conclusions about things you need to weigh equal factors. You can't logically compare apples and oranges. Saying you can train border collie not to herd or a terrier not to dig is vastly different than suggesting you can train a pitbull not to be aggressive to humans...because pitbulls were NOT bred to be aggressive toward humans.

Training can only go so far in some cases correct, especially training against what the breed was designed for...but that's not the case here and it's not the general experience of our membership. WHY? Primarily because the vast majority of our members (especially the longtime regulars) ARE those great dog owners that are responsible enough....to be responsible pet owners. :cloud9::grouphug:

I actually think we are on the same page here Dingo. I think we both agree that responsible owners MAKE good dogs. The best solutions rarely have to do with the breeds but rather the dog owners themselves. That's why breed bans will never work IMO.....because irresponsible owners will just go out and get a breed not on the ban list. Pitbulls are just the breed in the spotlight today.

That will be my contribution to this thread...it's an old thread.

best of luck in your research Dingo.

Marko

Dingo
November 13th, 2007, 03:28 PM
I mentioned aggression towards other dogs, yes, but also against people. The statistics cover attacks on people. They may not be 100% accurate, and probably don't take all questions into account, but it's undeniable that there's something there.

And it should be pointed out that even some good owners have dogs that attack. The Pit Bull that attacked my friend's husband and their dog last month was kept by what to all accounts seems to have been very responsible owners.

Schwinn
November 13th, 2007, 04:23 PM
Wikipedia can be a suspect source at best (I know, I use it often). A lot of controversial contain "facts" that are skewed in whatever direction the majority of editors are leaning, which becomes obvious when you look at the debate sections.

I had a set of arguments, but I'll use the sites that you have for reference.

From your first link referencing the JAVMA--

"Conclusions-Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. (emphasis mine) Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's bred with certainty, situtional [sic] and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bit injuries to humans and public policy concerning dangerous dogs."

And from this link(http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#statistics) (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#statistics), also from the site referenced in you post--

"Unfortunately, however, there are serious gaps in the data on this subject, leaving our assumptions and conclusions open to doubt."

And further down the same page, a court ruling--

"Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional."

The fact remains that it would be next to impossible to find a true expert who would suggest that pitbulls in and of themselves are vicious, or prone to attack human. As a matter of fact, during the Ontario hearings, not one canine expert testified for the fact that pitbulls are aggressive towards humans. Instead it was a grandstanding city official who ignored the fact that bites INCREASED in his city once pitbulls were banned, a self-proclaimed expert who is actually a dog groomer who never handles pitbulls, and a lot of anecdotal evidence from the general public. Yet those in opposition to the ban included the head of the OSPCA, several veterinarians as well as high up members of kennel clubs.

In the case of Pit Bulls there are two problems. Pit Bulls and their relatives were created as fighting dogs, so understandably they're often dog aggressive. They're often described as "dominant," "suspicious of strangers," "natural guard dogs" and other euphemisms designed to distract from their general tendency towards aggression.

Now THAT'S disingenuous. One of the breeds labled "pit bull" (and banned in Ontario) is called the Nanny dog because of thier gentleness with children. As a matter of fact, both the CKC and AKC list breeds referred to as "pit bulls" as "good with children" and go as far as to say "human aggression is rare with this breed, and discouraged in showing".

The other problem? Every dog that "attacks" is called a pitbull. This was evidenced by our illustrious former attorney general when he proclaimed that he was banning pit bulls to protect that poor child in Cambridge. The problem? When the OSPCA seized the dog, they determined it was a mix of several breeds, including whippet, yet had no "pit bull" in it what so ever. Of course, he forgot to mention that. Probably blinded from standing in front of the media lights so much.

We can agree on one thing, though. There is something going on. My argument has always been, why have pit bulls, who've been around for a couple of hundred years, only been a problem since the early '90's? Before that, it was rottweillers, before that doberman's, and before that, german sheppards (like the one who did, literally, rip off a part of my sister's face, and at that time, there was a massive movement to ban them). And lastly, if this breed is such a danger, why are they used as therapy dogs (in Ontario, right up until the ban) and as police dogs in some states? I'm at work, and normally don't post from here, so I don't have time to look up the reference, but it's on here somewhere of one pitbull who was sent out of Ontario to avoid being destroyed, only to become a police dog in Washington State.

Dingo
November 13th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Now who's quoting selectively? Scroll a little further down on that same page, and you'll see a section titled Serial attacks and rampage attacks, which says

Through January 20, 2002, the log of life-threatening and fatal attacks showed that pit bulls had committed 592 (45%) of the 1,301 total attacks qualifying for inclusion, including 280 (21%) of the attacks on children, 222 (60%) of the attacks on adults, 51 (34%) of the fatal attacks, and 321 (45%) of the maimings and disfigurements.

The section on "Canine homicides" includes a list of fatal dog attacks going back to 2004, in which Pit Bulls feature disproportionately. The entry for October 2007 includes two deaths, one caused by a "pack of 7 dogs" of unnamed breed, and the other reading

On October 3, 2007, Tina Marie Canterbury, 42, of Middleburg, Florida, was mauled to death by the two pit bulls which she had raised from the time they were puppies.

Even allowing for problems with reporting and discerning breed, there is clearly something going on.

Schwinn
November 13th, 2007, 09:39 PM
That's hardly quoting selectively. That's a disclaimer on the research they used to reach thier conclusions. That supports the argument that a pitbull is not always a pitbull. Again...



"Conclusions-Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. (emphasis mine) Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's bred with certainty, situtional [sic] and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bit injuries to humans and public policy concerning dangerous dogs."

Or is this the "selective" quote?
(http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#statistics) (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#statistics), also from the site referenced in you post--

"Unfortunately, however, there are serious gaps in the data on this subject, leaving our assumptions and conclusions open to doubt."

Again, this is saying that it is leaving doubts to thier own conclusions, which are the same as yours, that pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

I'm not sure what posting two specific examples are for. I could post several examples, including one where a golden retriever literally ate a woman's face in France (the face transplant lady? I may have the breed wrong, but it wasn't a pitbull) and an example of where a pom ripped out a baby's throat. I could also point you to the story of where police just north of me shot a border collie who attacked a woman, and probably would have killed her had someone not intervened.

I could go on and tell you several stories of dogs that have attacked me, or were aggressive to me. I could tell many more stories of pit bulls who were gentle pets, more gentle that any other dog I've ever seen (my own seven year old part pit, who's the fifth dog I have with, and who is in a house with a 2 1/2 year old and a 3 month old, is the most gentle dog I have ever been with, out of different breeds, including a husky, and a couple of lab crosses). I guarantee that I could come up with a lot more stories of pits who have lived long full lives and never hurt anyone than you could come up with about pits who've attacked or mauled. Why? Because the number of pits who are or have been loving family pets disproportionatly outnumber the vicious ones.

Toronto had estimated they had several thousand pit bulls in the city. Yet the number that have attacked was less than 1%. For a dog that's "vicious" and "prone to attack", that's what statisticians would call "statistically insignificant". Does that mean that deaths due to pit bulls or any other breed should be ignored? No, not at all. Quite the opposite. What it means is that attacking people is not a natural tendancy for these animals. It also means that we need to focus our energies on what the real issue is. Otherwise, 10-15 years from now, we'll be back at the same table arguing the same thing, only it will be a different breed that's up for being banned, just as it was for rottweillers 15 years ago, dobermans in the '80's and german shepards before that.

Saradog
November 13th, 2007, 10:34 PM
The dog who mauled the French woman's face was a Lab.

About a year ago, when a "pit bull" puppy supposedly chewed a baby's toes, there was a huge outcry. Then apparently the ferret did it. Then there was some question about the parents.

Recently, a neglectful father allowed a dachschund to maul his baby. Where's the outcry about this? Oooh, nooo, the media decided that the smell of urine in the baby's diaper attracted the dog. Presentation was totally different for the dachschund mauling than for the supposed "pit bull" mauling (which probably wasn't the dog at all).

Dingo
November 14th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Posting the specific examples was intended to demonstrate that Pit Bulls are regularly implicated in attacks on humans. No one's saying that other breeds aren't as well, only that Pit Bulls appear to be disproportionately represented. No one's saying the research or statistics are perfect either, but at the very least anecdotally the evidence seems to be there. When these things keep coming up again and again with a given breed, we have to wonder why.

LavenderRott
November 14th, 2007, 07:25 PM
Let me start by saying that my computer is currently not available so I do not have access to the dozens of links to back up everything that I am about to post. As my internet connection on this computer is tentative at best, I do not have the HOURS it would take to find those links AND post. So you will either have to take some of what I am about to say on faith. You could do the research yourself or just think I am a liar - it really is up to you.

First off - according to the American Kennel Club and the Canadian Kennel Club, there is no such thing as a Pit Bull. You will find that in almost every single breed ban there are three breeds listed ("and mixes thereof") - the American Staffordshire Terrier, The Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Bull Terrier. While there are other registering entities in North America, these two are the most "reputable" and in most circles considered the authorities. So we will base the following facts on this assumption.

Now - since I am a U.S citizen, I spend more time on the AKC website so I will be using the information gathered there in the last 10 minutes to make my point.

"Pit-bull type dogs" and Rottweilers were involved in one half of approximately 300 dog bite related fatalities in the US [http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf].

In 2006, AKC registered a total of 4,312 puppies of the breeds mentioned above. If you just use this number to figure out the percentage of "pit bulls" that bite - you will see that the number is 2.06%. That is a remarkably low number and doesn't begin to take into account the number of dogs registered in previous years, dogs registered to other registries, dogs that are not registered or "mixes thereof".

When you look at this - you will see that banning breeds is ridiculous and so is placing severe restrictions on "viscious breeds" such as the ones you mention in a previous post.

Here is a rather novel idea - uphold the laws that were on the books before the breed ban! :eek: Every single city that I have ever lived in has had laws on the books pertaining to vetting, leashing, and registering dogs. I think you will find that, almost without exception, dogs that attack and kill people are intact, loose, unregistered dogs.

ginahunt3
November 15th, 2007, 09:36 PM
I have owned pit bulls for 14 yrs., I have 2 4 y.o. now (Kaos, a male @ Nairobi, a female) and I cannot stand when people who have never even been near one talk about how vicious they are. Dogs are like children, they know what they are taught. Every child (and some adults) in my neighborhood comes to see them. One of my neighbors had a full grown chihuahua mix & when my male was 3 mos. old he used to play with him all the time and once he was full grown (about 85 lbs.), he still tried to play with him. He didn't realize that with the size difference all the jumping & rolling around would have squashed the poor little thing, but he has never tried to hurt anyone or anything, and my female is the same way. They are both sweet and lovable. People blame the dog but they should place the blame where it belongs with the owner.

ginahunt3
November 15th, 2007, 11:14 PM
I live in Connecticut & about 2 mos. ago (maybe less), there a horrible accident on the highway, numerous cars and trucks were involved and there was at least 1 fatality. The driver of one of the trucks involved and was hurt and had his pit bull in the cab with him even though the truck was overturned the dog was not hurt. When rescuers tried to take him amay, he would not leave his owners side! Where could you find more love and devotion than this dog showed him?

Jodi55
December 2nd, 2007, 03:15 PM
Well as far as I'm concerned I feel the same as almost everyone else. The pit bull takes the bad rap for every breed out there. Yes I do understand some are made aggressive which whoever said when the dog was put down the human who did that to that innocent animal should be also was so right. Or better yet put him in the pit to fight the pit bull. I know that might offend some people but here in Fl. there is a small county called St. Johns and from now on whenever animal control picks one up they will never go up for adoption even if they are not aggressive they will be put down if the owner doesn't come in to claim him/her. You can probably walk into any animal shelter and the majority of those animals are either full pits or mixed with pit. In the area I live this one guy in the next neighbor hood has 2 pits. He has a total of 4 dogs and all those dogs are always chained. There are a few others that do the same with their dogs and it makes me sick. There is a wonderfuld site called dogsdeservebetter.com which relates to a chained dog 24/7 or a caged dog. Why have them??? I guess I'm a bad one to even talk on this subject just because I feel this breed of dog is doomed from the day it's born.

PreciousFlower
January 18th, 2008, 12:12 PM
I know pitbulls who are very loving, gentle, and loyal, as well as protective. I also know other dog breeds who are the same.

It is the way they are RAISED. That determines the type of dog a dog turns out to be. A dog, just like a child, knows what a sense of fairness is. If you need to 'discispline' a dog, the best way to do this is to REDIRECT them, causing their attention to go to something else. Children tend to be the same way.

Lets face it, having a dog/cat/any pet is just like having a two year old around all the time.

If a pet is treated with love, that is what they learn and know.

Pitbulls have gotten a bad rep because of the cruel humans who train them to fight. And once that cruelty has been forced upon the animal, that is how they react. The animal has no choice in the matter. It's the humans who do this to them that need to be "put down". Unfortunately, once an animal has been trained to be such, they need to be put down. And yet, the humans who do this to them are allowed to continue to live.

Injustice.

I was recently surrounded by three pitbulls and one german shepard. I was walking my 6 month old puppy Flower, whose mother is half golden retriver and half chow, and whose father is half great dane and half saint bernard after I got home from work (11pm). Flower went into full protective mode and chased off all four large dogs who had surrounded us and were circling us both away. Flower and I were not hurt by the dogs, but their intension was clear with their growling and teeth barred. In the process, my shoulder now has a torn rotator cuff, but we both are safe.

Two days later that same dog pack attacked a postman and they have sense been rounded up and beheaded to test for rabies.

I dont understand people who let their dogs roam or dump them on the side of the road.

You might think me radical in my thinking, but if a dog who is owned by human who trains them to be ficious and that dog has to be killed to protect society, then the human who trains them to be as such needs to be killed by injection too. Otherwise, they will continue to train dogs to be cruel. To stop it, the humans responsible for this need to die too.

Marcee2800
January 24th, 2008, 01:06 PM
i dont find anything wrong with that quote. pit bulls can turn on their owner for no reason, and i feel that way because of my own personal experience, not because i saw it on the news!

But so can any other dog your statement should have been dogs can turn on their owns not pitbulls can.

Marcee2800
January 24th, 2008, 01:11 PM
i DID NOT put my dog to sleep. but i felt it was best to take her to a shelter since the second my back was turned, she would lower her head crouch down and growl. thats not normal for a good dog to do. i even thought that maybe it would pass, but when she started doing the same thing to my daughter who at the time was only 1 1/2 yrs old i realized something was wrong. and i would hope anyone else in this situation would do the same thing instead of being so closeminded to thinking that a dog, if raised a certain way could not possibly turn on its owner, or in my case, harm my child!

and I hope people wouldn't, what people don't understand is that almost every pitbull that goes threw the front door of the shelter will go out the back door in a body bag I hope that people would talk to expierence pitbull owners or an animal behaviorlist or that they would socialize them like crazy as a puppy, and try to get to the root of the problem also get test done and see if it is a health problem and there were medical problems there is so much more that you could have done for that dog. So sorry but I don't agree with you at all.

Marcee2800
January 24th, 2008, 01:44 PM
I think that last response is a tad disingenuous. I believe that bad owners make bad dogs as well, but I also believe that there are other factors.

In the case of Pit Bulls there are two problems. Pit Bulls and their relatives were created as fighting dogs, so understandably they're often dog aggressive. They're often described as "dominant," "suspicious of strangers," "natural guard dogs" and other euphemisms designed to distract from their general tendency towards aggression. Breeders are partly to blame for not paying enough attention to temperament, or for encouraging this type of "dominance" and "suspicion."

Of course, well cared for, well trained dogs belonging to responsible owners are rarely a problem, but the image of pit bulls as scary and aggressive is unfortunately what draws some irresponsible people to them. Unfortunately, some people choose Pit Bulls (and Preso Canarios, and Rottweilers and similar breeds) precisely because of their scary image.

On the other hand, training can only go so far. Good luck training a Border Collie not to herd or a retriever not to fetch, for example.

My personal experience with Pit Bulls has been different from your own. Several years ago, two Pit Bulls who lived on my street escaped their yard and mauled a young girl, nearly killing her and tearing off most of her face in the process. Last month, a friend's dog was nearly killed, and her husband was attacked, by a Pit Bull belonging to their neighbour that got off its leash. I've also frequently seen Pit Bulls behaving aggressively towards other dogs, including my own, at dog parks and in other public areas.

Of course, everyone's experience will be different. That's why I provided statistics that show that Pit Bull breeds and mixes are disproportionately represented in serious attacks on human children and adults: more than 1100 of 2209 recorded attacks in the US and Canada between 1982 and 2006, according to one study. Compare that to just over 400 for Rottweilers and mixes, fewer than 100 for German Shepards and mixes, 11 for Dobermans, 1 for Poodles.

So while I have problems with vague breed-specific legislation, I also think it's foolish to take a head in the sand approach as well. Perhaps the legislation should be addressing issues like breeding, muzzling, leashing, containing and training requirements for breeds known to be problematic, and for their owners, rather than outright bans. Or maybe they're right, and certain breeds with a documented propensity to human aggression should not be propagated, at least not according to the current standard. Clearly one serious attack by a Poodle over 24 years can be seen as an anomaly; more than 1100 attacks by Pit Bulls in the same period, representing over 50% of recorded attacks, seems more like a trend.


If you think that "suspisious of stangers" and "natural guard dog" discribe a pitbull then you just have no clue and should really go meet a responsibly owned Pitbull, they LOVE people the only problem we.ve ever had with all the pitbulls we have rescued was knocking people over cause they were so excited to see them, nobody is a stanger to them and they really aren't good guard dogs. There were breed to be like this so that when they were in the pit and in unbelievable pain that there owner could pick them up and not have them be agressive if they showed agression to people in anyway to judges or spectators they would be shot and not breed. And as far as statistics go here are some for you the AMPT has passed the American Temperment Test at %83 when the average for all other breeds in %77 and they passed over the lab, retiriver and cocker spaniel. and in a 7 year study for dogs most likey to bit out of 100 different breeds they were 4th... FROM THE BOTTOM. and out of all dog bites in the United States they accounted for %1.89 so as far as statistics go they are in the AMPT favor.

mastifflover
January 24th, 2008, 04:51 PM
Marcee you are so right pits have gotten such a bad rap I have only been attacked by their tails or tongues. These dogs are not human aggressive but can be dog aggressive but so can any breed. These dogs are very bright and need a smart owner a passive owner will have a dog that runs circles around them. Besides if bite statistics were real small dogs would probably have the highest incidence of biting. I have never had a large dog or pit get aggressive with me but have been bit by a small dog being held by the owner in a store while paying for my purchase the thing lunged and grabbed my wrist. If that was a pit it would have been pts. Yes there can be bad pits but there can been bad dogs in any breed and that usually happens because of bad breeding byb or mills.

Marcee2800
January 24th, 2008, 07:03 PM
Marcee you are so right pits have gotten such a bad rap I have only been attacked by their tails or tongues. These dogs are not human aggressive but can be dog aggressive but so can any breed. These dogs are very bright and need a smart owner a passive owner will have a dog that runs circles around them. Besides if bite statistics were real small dogs would probably have the highest incidence of biting. I have never had a large dog or pit get aggressive with me but have been bit by a small dog being held by the owner in a store while paying for my purchase the thing lunged and grabbed my wrist. If that was a pit it would have been pts. Yes there can be bad pits but there can been bad dogs in any breed and that usually happens because of bad breeding byb or mills.


Yes thank you I am glad to see how many people know the true AMPT,

Luvmypitgirls
July 16th, 2008, 02:00 PM
I currently have 2 Pits (both rescue) and a Rotti, in the past I have had Am Staffs as well as other breeds.
In all my years of having "bully breeds" I have never had one attack another human being. I did have a male Am Staff, that fought with a Malmute once but the Malmute started it.Thankfully I had a breakstick and was able to end it relatively quickly.

My Apbt's have never shown signs of DA, I have fostered lots of dogs and my Pits were more than willing to share their home and their "mom and dad".

Like someone posted earlier, many attacks claimed to be by Pitbulls, were not Pitbulls at all. Unfortunately, there aren't enough resources to do DNA testing on all dogs otherwise maybe the "stats" would be different.

I don't agree with breed bans, and as far as legislating that all Pits should be muzzled and such, why should my dogs be punished for the actions of a few?
I take great pride in knowing my Apbt's are good ambassadors for the breed.
Like that motto goes: "Punish the Deed not the Breed".

katherine93
July 17th, 2008, 04:32 PM
I currently have 2 Pits (both rescue) and a Rotti, in the past I have had Am Staffs as well as other breeds.
In all my years of having "bully breeds" I have never had one attack another human being. I did have a male Am Staff, that fought with a Malmute once but the Malmute started it.Thankfully I had a breakstick and was able to end it relatively quickly.

My Apbt's have never shown signs of DA, I have fostered lots of dogs and my Pits were more than willing to share their home and their "mom and dad".

Like someone posted earlier, many attacks claimed to be by Pitbulls, were not Pitbulls at all. Unfortunately, there aren't enough resources to do DNA testing on all dogs otherwise maybe the "stats" would be different.

I don't agree with breed bans, and as far as legislating that all Pits should be muzzled and such, why should my dogs be punished for the actions of a few?
I take great pride in knowing my Apbt's are good ambassadors for the breed.
Like that motto goes: "Punish the Deed not the Breed".


Very well said. I could not agree with you more. BTW- love your motto...take a look at this, maybe it will open some peoples eyes. http://www.atts.org/stats1.html

twodogsandacat
July 22nd, 2008, 10:06 PM
Well I haven't been here in a while but a search just led me in here. I hope all are well.

I thought I would post two items while here. One regarding the pit bull ban and another regarding the scum that passed that law.

With a death last week possibly being tied to a dog bite I thought I would bring your attention to a little known fact regarding Bill 132 and the DOLA.

In the two years leading up to the ban in which the Liberals were in power no dog related deaths occurred in Ontario. Since the ban was implemented there have been three - one per year. Leading up to the ban the average number of dog related deaths in Canada per year was one. Now the average of dog related deaths in Ontario alone since the ban is one a year.

This means that statistically Ontario if FAR FAR more dangerous than it was before the ban.

And as for the Liberals they continue to scam the sheeple in other ways with their announcements of improvement. Why the press doesn't tear them apart I don't know.

In the last month the Liberals have ramped up the new Health Care lotteries. Last month they announced the approval of cancer drugs in Ontario. The only problem is they only funded it enough that maybe 1 in 7 will get treatment. Today they announced that insulin pumps will be made available to 1300 type 1 diabetics. The only problem is that approx 900,000 people in Ontario have diabetes and the Canadian Diabetes association suggests that 10% of those have type 1. That means that over 88,000 type 1 diabetics WON'T get the pumps. The new minister of health used to run the Ontario lotteries but I would suggest that he still is running them.

wdawson
July 23rd, 2008, 07:17 PM
and you expected more :rolleyes: this is the liberal party:evil:

bellaTX
December 29th, 2008, 09:38 PM
hello im a bully owner and located in San Antonio TX if anyone else is located here there is a group called Alamo city bully breeds united we have weight pulling classes bully outings in the park and pit bull awareness days very positive organization if you want more info please message me :goodvibes:

mummummum
December 29th, 2008, 10:02 PM
Welcome bellatx!

Have you posted pix of your pupper here? I don't have one but, pitties are well-loved here. :lovestruck: at pets.ca

Marcha
August 7th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Let's not forget defensive handling by the owner (the belief that if the dog, as a pup, refuses to go for a walk by plopping down on its butt (for whatever reason), the dog is considered to be displaying 'alpha' or dominant behaviours, and must be shown who's boss immediately... as if a child who takes a cookie without asking will invariably become a thief as an adult) and defensive interactions/approaches (the energy of the person approaching with huge mistrust and fear - what does that tell the 'vicious' breed??)

I'm quite sure that defensive handling and approaching are a bigger part of the stats than people training their dogs to fight. A dog who is raised defensively and with mistrust will be a defensive and mistrustful dog.

Keep up the good work for making this horrible bill history.

meow
January 3rd, 2011, 10:32 PM
Any breed of dog can turn, yeah, but I also don't want people thinking that all dogs turn. There has to be something seriously wrong with a dog for it to attack like that. 99.9% of dogs don't TURN ever. Some become aggressive because of lack of training and all that, sure, but they don't "turn" all of a sudden. Dogs are not unpredictable most of the time, unless there is something neurologically wrong.

And in Dinky's case, the dog never turned, so IMO it was just lack of training.
I agree with this 100%. Just like people don't "turn." Seriel killers are not just well adjusted people who "snap." Neither are dogs. Alot of it is environment, handling, nutrition and treatment (unless it is neurological or rabies or something like that).

meow
January 3rd, 2011, 10:37 PM
I live in an area that has NO BSL, thank God! :dog: However, what if I own a piti and I want to travel elsewhere (another state)? How do I find out if piti there are banned? If they are does that mean I can't go there with my piti to visit?

HUMANS (bad ones) have caused the bad press on piti's. They used to be nursey dogs! They would watch over the babies in the nursies! :lovestruck: Then they became farm dogs but were so highly regarded they lived inside the farm homes. :thumbs up Now thanks to Michael Vick :evil: and others like him :evil: they are viewed by the deeds of the HUMANS and what HUMANS have done to them! :mad:

I hate Michael Vick, BTW :offtopic:

chico2
January 4th, 2011, 05:31 PM
Meow,nice to"see"you again,AG told us you have your very own Pittie now,you know we'd love to see some pics;)
I think all of us think the same about M.Vick,but of course he is a FOOT-BALL star,much more important than all the dogs tortured and killed.
It seems foot-ball is more important than the moral of the players.
How is Simba feeling about the new doggie??

Brandon W
April 3rd, 2011, 10:22 PM
Im finding that with all this attention brought to pitbulls being bad and aggressive dogs(bsl ban in ontario,and the medias bias picture it painted of "pitbulls") that it is teaching society that pitbulls(or dogs alike) ARE a dangerous dog,and that they WILL attack. So right away people are sending/getting triggers in their body that they feel uncomfortable,nervous and scared around these certain dogs. Dogs have a tons more receptors to pick up warning signs of a bad/dangerous person/animal.Now put an unstable human/animal around a dog and your chances of a problem are a lot higher. It is not helping to decrease attacks. Any dog can attack,or be trained/raised to attack. If they want to prevent or lower these attacks it starts with knowledge about dogs. Half of dog owners dont have a clue how to train or handle the breed they have chosen. This results in poor behavior,and lack of obeying orders,and a higher chance it will turn or misbehave. There should be laws made to obtain a dog no matter what breed. Example,any person wanting to own a dog must first pass this written test on caring and training a dog. People should not just be able to buy a dog and walk away. Manditory requirements might also include inspections of home prior to owning,as well as training started and completed within a certain time frame of aquiring the dog. I used to live in a more "younger/open minded/middle class" area of town(students/kids/lower class familys),and got Lola. Everyone loved her,people would always say hi to her,and stop to pet her. I moved back home which is a more laid back middle aged,somewhat upper class(familys/elderly/young couples/kids) sorta setting. OMG. I can not believe the difference in attitude toward pitbulls/look-a-likes. Im talking like crazyyyy. I will be a football field away. And these dog owners/people walking start to bolt like there is a stampede,or like the earth under their feet is falling and try to get away or avoid me and Lola. This is causing a lot confusion in her and mis-trust. She feels and senses the way people are scared and terrified in her. Now Im stuck trying to make her understand why people are feeling this way. It makes her uncomfortable,cause it is an actual all out panic that people are getting in. She feels those people are unstable,and i can tell is not sure around them,and im left to somehow reasure her.Ive found the ban has just made things worse. For attacks and for owners of pitbulls and dogs that resemble them,because now they have to suffer in the long run. Due to the way the media as well as the lack of knowledge has made people view only certain dogs as prone to attack. This makes it far worse,any dog will have more of a chance to attack if it feels threatened/uncomfortable,specially if the person attacked is feeling the same way.I wish those who view pitbulls as aggressive would not be so one sided and more informed with the right facts. Any and all pitbulls ive raised or trained have all turned out to be the most affectionate dog I have yet to raise or train. This type of breed is a posterboy for the saying "a dog is mans best friend" These dogs want nothing more then to impress and make their owner proud. One of the smartest dogs too,very easy to train,super quick learners. Two of the dogs most likely to bite a human are actually two of the most overlooked breeds for aggression and attacks. Anyone know which two ? Both are in the working class of dogs,and are one of the most popular breeds...

SamIam
April 3rd, 2011, 11:05 PM
There should be laws made to obtain a dog no matter what breed. Example,any person wanting to own a dog must first pass this written test on caring and training a dog. People should not just be able to buy a dog and walk away. Manditory requirements might also include inspections of home prior to owning,as well as training started and completed within a certain time frame of aquiring the dog.

Aside from infringing on free people's rights even more than a breed ban (due to directly affecting all people and all dogs), your suggestion would require (1) a neutral and accepted authority who also knows each breed and cross and individual dog and applicant well enough to make appropriate matches and (2) a great deal of money and manpower. And then the problem of why target dogs? What about cats? Horses? Cattle? Hamsters? ... all of which can suffer from neglect, and all of which can cause injury...

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 01:31 AM
True, it was just a thought. I didnt mean for every breed. Just those that are in question. But yes i know that it is not practical. Just wish people wouldnt believe everything they hear or see on tv,or the net. :P

I do not agree with the infingement. I had to have a "evaluation" done with myself and the two dogs we had in the apt. This ment s.p.c.a officer had to come into my apartment,examine it. Then examine the two dogs. As well as asking me a million questions. All this due to some inconsiderate/bias person who lied to the s.p.c.a to try to get me fined or have my dog removed.All because she thought it was a bad dog and afraid of it. This is infringement,there was no solid proof that I was doing any of the things the lady told them. But yet just cause someone called im forced to open my home and answer this officers questions....long story short the woman was charged with harassment and making a false statement.

chico2
April 4th, 2011, 09:44 AM
Brandon,Ontario needs more people like you and a politician to listen.
Unfortunately,the thought of Pitties being vicious has been imprinted on peoples brains,by the media and Michael Bryants rants...

If I even mention Pit-Bulls to people they get a look of disdain in their faces,prejudging a dog they might not ever have met..it's a shame and a disgrace:(

mummummum
April 4th, 2011, 10:36 AM
Brandon, are you hooked up with the BSL and Pittie Co-op folks in Toronto/ Onscario ?

Chris21711
April 4th, 2011, 12:55 PM
There should be laws made to obtain a dog no matter what breed. Example,any person wanting to own a dog must first pass this written test on caring and training a dog. People should not just be able to buy a dog and walk away. Manditory requirements might also include inspections of home prior to owning,as well as training started and completed within a certain time frame of aquiring the dog.



If this kind of law were applied......the number of dogs euthanized would be frightening. :(

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 01:27 PM
If this kind of law were applied......the number of dogs euthanized would be frightening. :(


How so ? Id think it would decrease if anything. No im not part of those groups,just started having these problems with people in my area. HOw would i join those groups ? Im very interested in them. This breed has such a bad rep. People here are the same,if you mention pittys or have one your the devil.

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 01:31 PM
I had this happen to me the other day. I had this grown man maybe in his 30's to 40's just panic and bolt away from Lola. Then down the street,a little girl asked to pet her. She was maybe 3 or 4. Not a fear in the world of the dog. So i let her,got Lola to sit,and then told her it was ok. Pitts love kids. I found it ironic that here is someone who is educated on the subject so afraid,then someone who has no knowledge not even think twice about the dog. It is frustraiting.

Chris21711
April 4th, 2011, 01:39 PM
How so ? Id think it would decrease if anything.

The majority of the people would not get a dog if they had to go to those lengths....:2cents:

SamIam
April 4th, 2011, 01:40 PM
How so ? Id think it would decrease if anything. No im not part of those groups,just started having these problems with people in my area. HOw would i join those groups ? Im very interested in them. This breed has such a bad rep. People here are the same,if you mention pittys or have one your the devil.

Everyone who is illiterate, dyslexic, thinks a dog should be "fat and happy" not trained, has a messy house or one something that is potentially dangerous, has poisonous plants, has onions/raisins/chocolate not in a locked cupboard, or is unable to attend class due to financial/social/other reasons would not be allowed to have a dog. Where are their dogs all going to go?

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 01:43 PM
Exactly,so because they will not do this they do not want to own a dog(or animal) that bad. It would decrease because it would be less animals brought into a home that is not able to take care of them properly. Which would make the pet population stop growing,as well as prevent owners from giving up their animal to the humane society. It would decrease if anything,there would also be less reproduction of the animals. Just my opinion.


The majority of the people would not get a dog if they had to go to those lengths....:2cents:

Chris21711
April 4th, 2011, 01:44 PM
Sorry Brandon, I disagree with you.

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 01:47 PM
Everyone who is illiterate, dyslexic, thinks a dog should be "fat and happy" not trained, has a messy house or one something that is potentially dangerous, has poisonous plants, has onions/raisins/chocolate not in a locked cupboard, or is unable to attend class due to financial/social/other reasons would not be allowed to have a dog. Where are their dogs all going to go?


True but then again should they be allowed to have an animal if they cant take care of it. I dunno im not saying this has to be done it was just a comment made when venting lol. Im tired of people looking at me like im a criminal for having a dog thats all lol. I know this idea would have to be debugged quite a bit in order for it to become a rule.

SamIam
April 4th, 2011, 01:50 PM
Where is mummummum when you need a politician's perspective?

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 01:54 PM
Sorry Brandon, I disagree with you.

No problems,no need to be sorry. It was just an idea that I had in my head and was said in the heat of the moment without any real thought about how it would effect people. Im just frustraited about the way this ban has effected pittys and their owners.

mikischo
April 4th, 2011, 02:21 PM
Brandon, you may not be aware that steps are being taken to try to have the Bill banning pitbull breeds in Ontario repealed. You can find more information on this and what you might be able to do to help at the following website:

http://www.stopk9profiling.com/

There was a rally, the "Million Mutt March" held just a couple of weeks ago. The passing of Bill 60 would go a long way to end BSL in Ontario (changing some peoples attitudes toward the breed could take longer).

You can find out a little more about Bill 60 at the following website:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2342&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill&Intranet=

The Bill passed the first reading in May of last year and nothing further has happened to-date.

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 03:26 PM
Thanks for the sites,I did know there was people trying to get it changed. Did not know about the sites or the actual facts of what what happening. Im going to do anything possible to show my opinion so I will be signing the petition and informing others about it as well. I know changing peoples opinion now is going to be hard but worth a try. The laws have to be changed on the act. Some of the act prevents good dog owners and specific owners that LOVE the breed from having them. All because of some irresponsible people and their actions with/on pitbulls. So im excited to see what more I can do. Im tired of being harassed by those around me with a clouded view on pitbulls and pitbull look-a-likes. :thumbs up

SamIam
April 4th, 2011, 04:01 PM
Brandon, lots of efforts in that area. The most difficult part will be to offer an alternate way of dealing with the people who are involved with pit bulls in illegal and unethical activities. As for public opinion, it existed long before breed bans were proposed and will exist long after they are removed. Your best bet is to educate those who are willing to listen. Take that 3-4 year old girl down the street from you, for example. You can teach her the proper way to treat a dog, to always ask the owner before petting, and also help explain how to tell whether a dog is friendly or not by reading the dog's body language.

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 04:32 PM
Brandon, lots of efforts in that area. The most difficult part will be to offer an alternate way of dealing with the people who are involved with pit bulls in illegal and unethical activities. As for public opinion, it existed long before breed bans were proposed and will exist long after they are removed. Your best bet is to educate those who are willing to listen. Take that 3-4 year old girl down the street from you, for example. You can teach her the proper way to treat a dog, to always ask the owner before petting, and also help explain how to tell whether a dog is friendly or not by reading the dog's body language.


Believe it or not i actually did this with the little girl. I explained that any dog can be mean,and that you should always ask the person with the dog first. then i got her to sit(lola) and then even made the girl ask her to sit as well. then she was able to pet her. The girl enjoyed it,she found it amusing that Lola listened to her command. But yes it will always be there and the ban didnt start it. Thats a perfect solution,and its what i try to do,is educate that they can be just as good as any other breed. Lola is a great example of it,and she loves the attention when people want to find out about them. I have had people stop and ask too,i think more are realizing that any dog can become unstable.Its all one big learning circle lol

erykah1310
April 4th, 2011, 11:21 PM
Everyone who is illiterate, dyslexic, thinks a dog should be "fat and happy" not trained, has a messy house or one something that is potentially dangerous, has poisonous plants, has onions/raisins/chocolate not in a locked cupboard, or is unable to attend class due to financial/social/other reasons would not be allowed to have a dog. Where are their dogs all going to go?

I'm not sure if I am reading this wrong or not, but are you saying that someone who has trouble reading/writing ect should not own a dog?
If so, that is extemely horrible to say. I have an ex who was illiterate but the KINDEST person to animals I have ever seen. He may not have been able to read or write (well) but he knew how to take care of a dog regardless.
Just sayin...

Brandon W
April 4th, 2011, 11:34 PM
I'm not sure if I am reading this wrong or not, but are you saying that someone who has trouble reading/writing ect should not own a dog?
If so, that is extemely horrible to say. I have an ex who was illiterate but the KINDEST person to animals I have ever seen. He may not have been able to read or write (well) but he knew how to take care of a dog regardless.
Just sayin...

No no,they are saying the opposite. That if there were rules to having an animal. Like proper home,training..blah blah that those people with difficulties reading writing,or another issue do not have a balanced income will lose out on owning an animal.

SamIam
April 4th, 2011, 11:45 PM
I'm not sure if I am reading this wrong or not, but are you saying that someone who has trouble reading/writing ect should not own a dog?
If so, that is extemely horrible to say. I have an ex who was illiterate but the KINDEST person to animals I have ever seen. He may not have been able to read or write (well) but he knew how to take care of a dog regardless.
Just sayin...

Brandon suggested policing the acquisition of dogs, including a written test. I was disagreeing with him because of people just like your ex who would be unfairly eliminated.

mummummum
April 5th, 2011, 10:39 AM
No im not part of those groups,just started having these problems with people in my area. HOw would i join those groups ? Im very interested in them. This breed has such a bad rep. People here are the same,if you mention pittys or have one your the devil.

I've sent this info to you by PM as well per your request but here it is for all:

www.stopk9profiling.com is a good first stop as a resource for neighbourhood groups and political activism. The Co-op is headed up by a Pets member (who we do not see enuf of here <hint hint Ms. Debs>) http://www.pitbullcoop.2ya.com/ They have weekly walks and lots of special events. There are many Canada/ USA BSL groups on FB but they'll be able to hook you up.

Pibbles :lovestruck::cloud9:

erykah1310
April 5th, 2011, 10:47 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, I sort of figured I was reading it wrong.
Seeing as though I am still good friends with that particular ex and he is my current mans good friend as well, I, in a heart beat, if I had to rehome any of my dogs would send one to him with out a second thought.

Besides any sort of policing or permits ect that would be required to own a dog would not work, although in a perfect world there would be ways to ensure only the best suitable candiates for everything from parenthood to pet ownership would have that right... however, even simple things such as the gun registry are complete fails.