Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Guidelines for dogs in lieu of bans

2Cats
November 9th, 2004, 11:16 PM
As a Canadian, I do not support the Ontario Pit Bull ban. I do however support increased criminal liability, higher fines etc. for those whose animals (of any breed) pose a nuisance and/or threat to the general public and to the reasonable peace of neighbourhoods with excessive barking/howling etc.

The new guidelines could read something like this:

a) Any animal running at large can be problematic even if it isn't vicious. dogs at large can frighten people, open garbage, dig holes, destroy planting beds etc. I support full restitution for damages caused by loose dogs.

Ex) Your dog escapes from your yard and digs up my vegetable garden. You are wholly responsible for the entire replacement cost of said garden.

b) Any dog who attacks, threatens to attack, chases or otherwise intimidates or disturbs anyone is declared a 'nuisance' (for minor violations), or a 'dangerous' (for major ones) animal and is subject to licensing increases, muzzling and leashing in public, banning from off leash dog parks and subject to housing either indoors or in a secure enclosure on the owner's property. Someone's right to own dog does not trump someone else's right not to be threatened or attacked in a public area.

I also support severe fines and even imprisonment for those who fail to protect the public from their animals. This should make any questionable animal's owner sit up and take notice while exempting dogs who are responsibly handled, whatever the breed.

pitbulliest
November 10th, 2004, 12:37 AM
As a Canadian, I do not support the Ontario Pit Bull ban. I do however support increased criminal liability, higher fines etc. for those whose animals (of any breed) pose a nuisance and/or threat to the general public and to the reasonable peace of neighbourhoods with excessive barking/howling etc.

The new guidelines could read something like this:

a) Any animal running at large can be problematic even if it isn't vicious. dogs at large can frighten people, open garbage, dig holes, destroy planting beds etc. I support full restitution for damages caused by loose dogs.

Ex) Your dog escapes from your yard and digs up my vegetable garden. You are wholly responsible for the entire replacement cost of said garden.

b) Any dog who attacks, threatens to attack, chases or otherwise intimidates or disturbs anyone is declared a 'nuisance' (for minor violations), or a 'dangerous' (for major ones) animal and is subject to licensing increases, muzzling and leashing in public, banning from off leash dog parks and subject to housing either indoors or in a secure enclosure on the owner's property. Someone's right to own dog does not trump someone else's right not to be threatened or attacked in a public area.

I also support severe fines and even imprisonment for those who fail to protect the public from their animals. This should make any questionable animal's owner sit up and take notice while exempting dogs who are responsibly handled, whatever the breed.

====
I don't agree with your B statement. Its much too vague. What do you mean by intimidates or disturbs? I have crazy neighbors that would include a bark or even a strange look from a dog as a "disturbance" or "intimidating"...this is one problem that we're having with Michael Bryant's legislation as well. There is too much space for problems between neighbors, or excuses for dog haters to just get you and your pet into trouble. Like I said, it's too vague and if you're going to include the words "disturbing" or "intimidating" in legislation, you have to define them and be very clear and exact as to what you mean.

I do however, agree with stronger laws for increased criminal/animal abuser liability and all that good smack. That is exactly what society needs. It would definately solve alot of problems with these so called "vicious" dogs..all they need is some love and a good responsible owner....not a drug dealing thief or a BYB as a master...

Anyways..some good points brought up, but I just thought I'd throw in my two cents. :thumbs up

raingirl
November 10th, 2004, 08:54 AM
I agree. There's a girl in my office dealthy afraid of dogs. If one comes near her she freaks out and is afraid it is going to bite and threatens to sue.

Your points in part B are too subjective and open to interpretation.