Go Back   Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca > Discussion Groups - mainly cats and dogs > Breed characteristics and traits > Breed bans - BSL - Pit Bull bans

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 9th, 2004, 10:16 PM
2Cats 2Cats is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2
Lightbulb Guidelines for dogs in lieu of bans

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old November 9th, 2004, 11:37 PM
pitbulliest's Avatar
pitbulliest pitbulliest is offline
Love all creatures
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Cats
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old November 10th, 2004, 07:54 AM
raingirl's Avatar
raingirl raingirl is offline
<-----nut ball
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,804
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Terms of Use

  • All Bulletin Board Posts are for personal/non-commercial use only.
  • Self-promotion and/or promotion in general is prohibited.
  • Debate is healthy but profane and deliberately rude posts will be deleted.
  • Posters not following the rules will be banned at the Admins' discretion.
  • Read the Full Forum Rules

Forum Details

  • Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
    vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise (Reduced on this page: MySQL 10.00%).
  • All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 AM.