- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


Bullmastiffs,Pits, Rottie's "weapons" not pets.. news

November 2nd, 2004, 08:58 PM
We should be mass emailing this Jerk!! :evil: I'll post his email when I get it!!

Going doggone mad
CNEWS Columnist

You know the bureaucrats have gone mad when it's against the law to keep a chicken in your backyard but killer dogs are A-OK.

The recent spate of dog attacks on young children in the Toronto area is a tragic illustration of the need for tight control over aggressive dogs -- and their owners.

There were six vicious attacks in May, one leading to the death of eight-year-old Courtney Tempe. She was mauled by a 130-pound bull mastiff.

Bull mastiffs, pitbulls and rottweilers are bred for their extraordinary strength, bad temper and ability to kill. These animals are not pets -- they are not for cuddling -- they are weapons. They should be treated like the high-powered firearms that they are. Perhaps there owners should be charged with assault, or in the worst case, murder when their dogs hurt people. Like a gun, these dogs can maim and kill. In the wrong hands, they are deadly.

However, I'm sure most folks own these dogs as a tool of intimidation. It's a macho thing that masks deep insecurity. The owners want to scare people, the same way outlaws wore sidearms in the 1800s.

The difference, however, is large. Handguns need to be loaded with bullets, require good aim and the squeeze of a trigger to inflict pain. A pitbull, rottweiler or mastiff fires without the same deliberate manipulation. You can't holster a pitbull and it doesn't run out of ammunition.

Politicians from across Ontario could learn a lesson from councillors in Kitchener-Waterloo. With the help of Kitchener-Wilmot MPP Gary Leadston, councillors passed a bylaw that will eventually rid the city of pitbulls. Those pitbulls that were already licenced when the law came into effect last year had their permits grandfathered. But that's the end of it. No additions from outside the city and no breeding inside the city.

The law requires puppies to be destroyed. It's a start.

November 2nd, 2004, 09:02 PM
Article entitled "Bring back the Past" It has 15 things on the list she wishes were back (for Nostalgia day)
Author Liz Braun:
9. Dogs as pets, as opposed to dogs as personal or social statements.

Why do you own an attack dog? Is it because you're a drug dealer or a stock broker or some other kind of entrepreneur known to inspire violence? You know what people really think when they see you out walking your American pitbull terrier/Rottweiler/Alsatian sort of dog? They think you probably have a really small penis.

November 2nd, 2004, 09:24 PM
Wow , there aren't many colonists that feel that way , but I suppose Bryant isn't the only person in ontario that has his head up his A@@.Find the email address of this guy and the editor in chief of the rag he writes for .

November 3rd, 2004, 09:45 AM
Every time I see some idiot write about the "bad temperment" of these dogs, I usually send an e-mail asking where they get thier facts, because the experts say the opposite. Sometimes I'll suggest that since they are some hack who can't be bothered to check the facts, they obviously know more than what the experts are saying. (Depends on how angry I am). I think we should all send e-mails (trying to remain calm. I know it's sometimes tough for me) with the actual facts.

Sherrif, any chance you have an e-mail address for that twit? I think I'd like to point out that a)since my wife usually walks my rotti/pit cross, I would hope they don't think she has a penis at all, and b)since said wife is now with child as a result of sometime between our wedding night and honeymoon, my penis is obviously adequate enough to do the job. (sorry if that's too much information!)

November 3rd, 2004, 09:58 AM
I want this guys address too. My mastiff is the biggest cuddler and would love to sit on my lap if he would fit and not crush me. This idiot has no facts he is just shooting off his big uneducated mouth.

November 3rd, 2004, 10:14 AM
Hey...I don't even have a penis. lol. I am a 44 year old female, that is trained as a Registered Nurse. I own a Pitbull, and a German Shepherd. What a sexist, ignorant remark.

November 3rd, 2004, 10:36 AM
Hey...I don't even have a penis. lol. I am a 44 year old female, that is trained as a Registered Nurse. I own a Pitbull, and a German Shepherd. What a sexist, ignorant remark.

I drive a truck that is slightly higher than normal, and I work out heavily (5'8", 200 lbs). I can only imagine what she would say about my manhood if she saw me on the way to the gym in my truck with my Rotti/pit cross!

November 3rd, 2004, 11:09 AM
Anyway we can have an address to this idiot. This pisses me off to no end and I have a huge number of people who own Rotties, Mastiffs and Pitts that would love to annoy the daylights out of this moron. Sorry, I don't normally get this wound up but the last bloody line about the puppies has me fit to be tied! :mad:

November 3rd, 2004, 11:19 AM
I am not sure where you got the article, but Courtney Tempe was killed in 1998. This being the case, the article is not new and e-mailing the author would be beating a dead horse.

November 3rd, 2004, 11:20 AM
I am not sure where you got the article, but Courtney Tempe was killed in 1998. This being the case, the article is not new and e-mailing the author would be beating a dead horse.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. What about the second article? Is that one fairly recent, or is it old as well?

November 3rd, 2004, 02:36 PM
The second article is Feb 2003. The reason I posted them, was twofold. They are both readily available to the public on Canoe News Media by simply typing in "Pitbull", so whether the aticle is new or not it can still be accessed (many cannot without a $10.00 fee). The second is both these authors are still writing today, and could use a reminder that Bullmastiffs, Pitbulls, Rottie's and GSDs are not inherently dangerous, nor used by most ppl as a macho thing.
Thats the thing about putting your words down for prosperity... they can one day come back to haunt you.... and I think they should haunt these 2. They both made a very public statement regarding dogs they feel are "weapons", and maybe when they wrote the articles they didn't recieve any back lash... but they do need to be challenged, even this many years later. (sorry, in my opinion :p )

November 3rd, 2004, 02:55 PM
I think you're absolutely right. It's okay for you to dislike my dog (there are certain dogs I can't stand, but I don't think that's somthing to get into here :crazy: ), heck, on some level, I understand the fear causing people to want to ban it! But if you're in a position of addressing a public forum, you damn well better know your butt from page 2!! I fully believe if a reporter or columnist is going to be spouting off about something they have no facts about, we have a responsibility to call them on it.

That being said, here's a column I read yesterday that I think needs addressing--

Lee D'or, Metro news (

November 3rd, 2004, 03:01 PM
perhaps it is the parents of those kids that are the weapons, they should not be allowed ot have kids. sorry but im confused, when did our dogs start watching our children and parents stopped, you mean this whole time i have had a babysitter in the yard, why did no one tell me before.

not to mention my lovely weapon, gee and i can attach a note to my weapons collar and send her in to rob banks instead of me, cause as you know i am nothing but a dog owning criminal robbing drug dealer horrid person, oh didnt you know you are too, you have a dog. i wonder what that makes cat ppl? oh and of course in the true spirit of being a dog owner, my ego is huge and i feed her little kids for breakfast.

it just amazes me the sheer stupidity of ppl sometimes, they need muzzles themselves before they hurt someone. :mad:

November 3rd, 2004, 03:20 PM
I think my "weapon" has the safety stuck on...she ran away from the guy who came to the door the other day.

November 3rd, 2004, 06:09 PM
I just sent this e-mail in response to the article in the Metro. Just curious if it sounds okay:

I read your column about pitbulls, and found it interesting. Not because it was well written or factual, but because you are a reporter, and it is obvious you did no fact checking. You've based your "facts" on the headlines and two pitbulls you saw fight. Have you ever seen other dogs fight? I can assure, none of them are very pleasant. I also find it interesting you say you didn't find them "cuddly". Well, since that's the case with these two dogs, then I guess they are all that way? It's funny, because the American Kennel Club and the Canadian Kennel Club both describe the breed as "affectionate, reliable, and an especially good dog for children" and "the only thing that will break his spirit and his heart is lack of his owner's fond attention". To people who actually know these dogs (and I'm talking about resposible individuals who get them for the companionship, not the small minority who have them for their ego), they are the biggest sucks around.
You referred to the woman who asked, "If a human was going around and randomly maiming other humans, for no apparent reason, would we question how he or she was raised, or would we just put an end to their attacks?" We wouldn't wipe out all humans, thatís for sure! But I guess my other answer would be, what is the relevance? In most attacks, we find out there is an apparent reason. With very little investigative effort, I have been able to find a lot of these dogs were mistreated by drug dealers, and people who use them for fighting.
I could go on and list all the professional organizations who state that this dog's natural nature towards humans is friendly, and an unrelenting desire to please their owners. Or list the twenty or more dogs who scored worse in 2001 by the American Temperment Testing Society, including the collie, ****er spaniel and the dalmation, just to name a few. People who are defending the dog are not upset because they happen to be owners, they are upset because of people like you who are not only uninformed, but decide to perpetuate the myth without due diligence.
The newspapers are largely to blame for the problem. In the last two weeks, there have been at least five instances of dog bites in Ontario, including at least one where the person was hospitalized. Why was this not reported in major papers? I can only assume because they were not pitbulls, and therefore not major news. Sometimes, it isn't even a pitbull that attacks. I've read in several locations about the poor girl killed in 1998, and have seen some outlets refer to that dog as a pitbull, when, in fact it wasn't, as confirmed by the inquest that followed, and the OSPCA. In other cases, they list it as a "pitbull-type dog". I guess if you aren't sure, at least you can make it newsworthy by labling it as something "vicious". If these dogs are so vicious, so prone to go off, with the literally thousands of dogs out there, why are there not more attacks? And why has it only been in the last 10 or 15 years? Because before that it was dobermans, before that rottweillers, and before that, German shephards. Whatever breed is currently being demonized will attract the lowest of the low of our society. And by printing something that you obviously have little knowledge about, you are only helping to perpetuate that.
Your masthead picture is perfect. You SHOULD hide your face. In shame.

And the article:

November 3rd, 2004, 07:22 PM
As for a 'small penis'? I don't seem to have one at all... ;)

November 5th, 2004, 12:10 AM
Arrghhh #@^%$&^*&! :mad: