Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Ontario Pit Bull Ban |
| 11.01.04 (1:09 am) [edit] |
|
As far as I am concerned, this is great. Now, if only Canadians could get only get around to banning hand guns. |
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 11.10.04 (7:46 am)
Perhaps before you express your opinion, you should base it on fact. Pit bulls are atthe bottom of the list of the biters - labs bite most often...would you ban them too? You like Mr Bryant, have not done your reseach. It is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself...
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 11.10.04 (12:43 pm)
sorry they do not make up a disportionate number of dog bites. According to American figures, they only make a hugely disportionate (Bit bulls and Rottweilers) number of deaths and bites needing medical attention. Plenty for reason to ban them
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 11.11.04 (7:35 am)
Reply to: koby
That stat is grossly incorrect and I would be curious to find out where you recieved it.
Let me educate you since you, like Bryant are too lazt to conduct proper research:
· On October 15, Mr. Bryant quoting U.S. statistics stated, “Pit bulls represent just 1 per cent of the U.S. dog population but they accounted for between 48 and 56 per cent of serious dog attacks." According to researchers at the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease
Control (CDC), who have done the most work on dog bites that it is impossible to determine which breeds of dog are the most dangerous because no one knows how many dogs of each type there are . Official dog licence data can't be used because many dog owners don't register their dogs. Do pit bulls represent just 1 per cent of the U.S. dog population? The truth is no one knows.
· On October 15, Mr. Bryant was quoted as saying “pit bulls account for between 48 and 56 per cent of serious dog bites in the U.S.” According to Mr. Bryant's staff, he got this statistic from an obscure Washington state publication called Animal People, which reported from its own non-statistically representative "original investigative coverage" that of 59 vicious repeat offender dogs it found, 28 (48 per cent) were pit bulls. A more accurate, scientific statistic from the CDC reported in 1996 that out of 199 dog bite fatalities recorded in the U.S. over a 17-year period, pit bulls accounted for 60, or a little less than 30 per cent of the bites. That same data indicates that pit bull related fatalities have steadily declined over the past 15-years, while Rottweiler related fatalities have steadily increased over the same period.
Additionally:
Breed Specific Legislation does not stop dangerous dog bites. In the four years immediately following the pit bull ban in Winnipeg, pit bull bites dropped to one-to-two incidents per year but the overall number of dog bites INCREASED . This also happened in England after Breed Specific Legislation was introduced.
The Ontario Veterinary Medical Association does not advocate legislation naming specific breeds of dogs as being vicious. OVMA encourages and supports responsible genetic selection, rearing and training of dogs to control aggression . The Toronto Humane Society also believes that breed bans are not the answer to dog bites and aggressive behaviour . Additionally, the National Companion Animal Coalition, who counts amongst its members, the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture has published a statement presenting a similarly dim view of breed specific bans
Oh, and more point:
The McGuinty Liberals have not thoroughly investigated the crippling economic costs of breed specific legislation. Fines levied, will not pay to enforce the legislation. Municipalities across Ontario will have to find alternate means to pay for this legislation. Based on cost estimates for Prince George, MD, Ontario's municipalities should expect the new legislation to cost millions. In Prince George, population 800,000, expenses after revenues were deducted was $524,509 for 2001-2002. With a population of 12 million, the cost in Ontario would equate to $7,867,635. Given the rural nature of many of Ontario's communities, it is reasonable to assume that the costs would be higher still. This is a burden that municipalities cannot afford under the current tax structure.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 11.11.04 (7:42 am)
Reply to: koby
I have one more thing to add, if you are silly as Brynat and suggest that pit bulls are "inherently dangerous dogs," you should be advised that the US Spreme Court ruled in 1998 they are not. Gioven that you are using some obscure and inaccruate American stat to support your basis for a an all-out ban, then you should factor this in. I'll make this easy for you, here is a link to Web site....
http://home.comcast.net/~dawn.c/library.html
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 11.11.04 (12:53 pm)
Reply to: newbie
Pit bulls are not inherently prone to violence. The vast majority of pit bulls will never bite anyone. However, dogs that are bigger and dogs that have greater biting power (e.g., pit bull), naturally, poise more of risk to the public. The stats bare this out. You seem to want to obscure this by saying that “only” 30 % DBRF involved bit bulls from 1979 to 1994. (More recent stats are even more troubling. According to the CDC, “Pit Bull type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in over half” of DBRF from 1979 to 1998. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf) This is a huge number and is not mediated by the fact that dog ownership figures are incomplete. No one in their right mind would say that 30 % of all dogs during that time period where bit bulls. Most estimates put the Pit bull population around 1%.
During the 1980s Winnipeg averaged 344 dog bites a year. During the 1990s 214 dog bites a year. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1098741009611
Prince George does not have anywhere near 800,000 people. I think you added an extra zero.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 11.12.04 (3:42 am)
Reply to: koby
Koby, I to want to protect people from dangerous dogs; however, breed specific leigaltion does not work, which is why ALL the experts - people who understand canine behaviour - oppose it. Make owners responsible for their animals and give the humane society legislation that they can enforce.
Please call Tim Dack, Winnipeg Humane society who can explain the winnipeg bite stats. He stated the Ontario Liberals are reading that stats incorrectly and that the citicens of Winnipeg are still at risk everyday to brutal dog attacks. In Winnipeg, the smae bad owners wh owned pit bulls are now crossing Tosa'a and Fila's -- can you imagine how scary that is? These two breeds were bredd ti rip people apart. Tim has sent me the following information. Read it and come to your own conclusion.
If you think the story in Winnipeg justifies breed specific legislation, think again. - Pit bulls were banned in the city in 1990. In the following year the number of pit bull bites had dropped significantly - from 28 IN 1989 to 3. However, bites by a single breed rose by 450% and the overall number of bites by just two groups German Shepherd and Rottweiler type dogs - rose by 31 incidents. Thirty-one incidents is more than the 28 in 1989 that the city used to justify the
pit bull ban in the first place. By 1993 the bites German Shepherd and Rottweiler type dogs were up by 44 incidents when compared to the 1990 numbers. (I hardly think the parents of the poor boy who was attacked by a German Shepherd recently would agree that their child's attacks was any less horrifying the 'pit bull' attack Mr. Bryant has mentioned.)
Winnipeg Humane Society spokeswoman Aileen White on banning pit bulls in Ontario: "It's certainly already proven within our province that if you ban a certain breed, the people that want to own this kind of tough dog, if you will, they're going to go on to the next breed," she says. "They'll just keep going down the list, until ... when do you stop? At what point do you actually stop banning breeds?" http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=mb_pitbulls20041018
Something did happen to reduce the overall number of bites in Winnipeg In the last two years (2002,2003), but this was completely independent of the 'pit bull' ban, as pit bull bites were virtually eliminated by 1991.
If we all work together, we can work to make our communities through proper legislation that protects us from dangerous dogs not one that is an easy target.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 11.12.04 (11:09 am)
I read the star article. reducing pit bull bites by that amount is not going to account for the supposed drop. I was just relying the numbers I saw. "It's certainly already proven within our province that if you ban a certain breed, the people that want to own this kind of tough dog, if you will, they're going to go on to the next breed," I agree; just banning pit bulls will not work. You have to go the extra mile and ban all "tough" breeds. That being said, I do not think there is the political will to go that route. Moreover, I wonder if a prohibition of that kind would have any hope of working.
"Make owners responsible for their animals and give the humane society legislation that they can enforce." The vast majority of owners are responsible. However, dogs do have a mind of their own and sometimes they do things that you can not fault of their owners for. More importantly, in absolute terms, but not by percentage, you are always going to have a large pool of idiot owners.
posted by: Patrick (reply)
post date: 11.18.04 (7:43 am)
Like the others that have posted here, I find you to be grossly misrepresenting the breeds in question, and completely, utterly botching the actual statistics involved.
Firstly, neither Canada nor the United States keep truly reliable bite statistics.
Secondly, the very fact that "pit bulls" are currently the dog of choice for drug dealers, thugs, and general miscreants means they *should* be responsible for a huge number of attacks. But they are NOT. Weird, huh? They are bred to be human-submissive, and are exceedingly difficult to train to be human aggressive.
Now, the reason Winnipeg's # of bites are finally down is not because of the breed specific legislation, it's because they finally instituted a zero-tolerance leash and registration law a couple years ago. Until then, # of bites was higher than the year of the breed ban. Silly, huh?
Everywhere BSL has been instituted it has failed. Most places it was instituted it has been repealed. Every reputable canine organisation opposes it. Doesn't that tell you something? When the experts say "this is stupid", it's *probably* stupid.
You say big, aggressive dogs in general are a problem. I agree. So let's institute effective law to protect against ALL dogs, not just one specific type. Banning one breed is just sheer lunacy and solves nothing.
So hey, keep your thoughts to yourself until you educate yourself on the topic, eh? Too many people have opinions about things they know nothing about...
In academia, that's called... wait for it...
Here it comes...
IGNORANCE.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 11.18.04 (3:21 pm)
This comment is mine. I had forget to sign in. "I agree; just banning pit bulls will not work. You have to go the extra mile and ban all "tough" breeds. That being said, I do not think there is the political will to go that route. Moreover, I wonder if a prohibition of that kind would have any hope of working."
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 11.23.04 (7:19 am)
Reply to: koby
Ok, I have to admit, that made me laugh out loud.
You're such an ignoramous. Who defines what a "tough" breed is?
My experience is that dalmations and daschunds are VICIOUS. I've been bit by both. My experience is that pitbulls are loving, wonderful dogs.
Clearly you wouldn't want ME deciding which dog is "tough" and "dangerous".
Who then? The Humane Society?
They oppose it.
The OSPCA?
They oppose it.
The OVMA?
They oppose it.
Canada Safety Council?
They oppose it.
I could go on...
The only people that support this thing are ignorant, fearmongering people, of which you can count yourself a member. There really should be a registration fee and yearly taxation on people like you.
We could then use that money to improve health care, education, corrections, and the environment, instead of wasting it on ineffectual laws that have no basis in good science, fact, or reason.
Man -- I like that. Tax the idiots, put the money toward improving society.
Problem being, of course, who decides who is an idiot and who is not?
Get the point?
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 11.26.04 (11:06 am)
Reply to: newbie
"Tough breed" was in quotes for a reason. Namely, it was quoted material. Material you quoted. Dolt. As for a ban, on certain types of dogs what makes you think that I would favor some expensive enforcement regime? There is more than one way to skin a cat. Anyway, if you bothered to read what I said, you would see that I expressed doubts about such a project working. "That being said, I do not think there is the political will to go that route. Moreover, I wonder if a prohibition of that kind would have any hope of working."
“My experience is that dalmations and daschunds are VICIOUS. I've been bit by both. My experience is that pitbulls are loving, wonderful dogs.” That is nice. So the fuck what? Besides, I have as I have said “Pit bulls are not inherently prone to violence. The vast majority of pit bulls will never bite anyone.”
As for your laundry list, let me remind you of something “Winnipeg Humane Society spokeswoman Aileen White on banning pit bulls in Ontario: ‘It's certainly already proven within our province that if you ban a certain breed, the people that want to own this kind of tough dog, if you will, they're going to go on to the next breed.” That is right. She was talking about banning, get this, certain “TOUGH” breeds. Now, here is what I said about this. “I agree; just banning pit bulls will not work. You have to go the extra mile and ban all ‘tough’ breeds.” As you have a hard time processing and retaining information, let me repeat. I agree with the Winnipeg Humane Society. Banning certain “tough” breeds will not work.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.01.04 (11:07 am)
The ban has not yet been passed.
posted by: robBob (reply)
post date: 12.06.04 (11:46 pm)
Reply to: anybody who cares
The ban WILL be passed, and it will be a great day for everyone. Not only will our communities be safer, but we will no longer have to listen to your endless defense of your right to choose the kind of "pet" you want, which is so much more important than a child's right to keep his or her face. There are lots of other breeds out there. Deal with it. Michael Bryant is only answering the call of the majority of Ontarians. In fact, I would agree to a referendum tomorrow if given the choice. Good riddance to you and your precious pitbulls.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.07.04 (8:27 am)
Wow, that is harsh.
As a Canadian I thoght had inherent rights.... Perhaps when your rights are being infringed upon you will see where we are coming from. Our dogs are well-behaved, socialized dogs that have done nothing more serious than being born.
I now know to a lesser extent what it must be like to live under the taliban and have no rights.
posted by: robBob (reply)
post date: 12.07.04 (5:19 pm)
Reply to: newbie
If your dogs are well behaved and socialized, which I have no doubt they are, then you have nothing to worry about. No one is going to show up at your door and confiscate your dogs. You will just have to give up the option of breeding them as well as getting another one as long as you live in this province. I agree with everyone's argument that a bad dog is the result of a bad owner. No one is disputing that. The thing is, there is no way of guaranteeing that every pitbull will end up in the hands of a responsible owner and away from idiots, losers and mutants who just dont have a clue. It sucks, I know, but the fact is that dogs with this kind of potential for serious harm are too attractive to the wrong people. I'm sorry for coming off as harsh, but it's impossible for me to understand why so many owners consider the Ban to be such a violation of their personal freedoms. Give me a break. What about the personal freedom of a child having to have his/her face sown back on because someone left the side door open. (btw...Taliban? PLEASE!!!) If there are no more POTENTIALLY dangerous dogs, then we no longer have to worry about potentially dangerous dogs falling into the wrong hands, which they all too often do. Like anything else, a small group of boneheads ruined it for everyone else.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.08.04 (6:23 am)
You, Koby are an idiot! I work at a veterinary teaching Hospital and of the over 200 vets I know, NOT ONE of them agrees with the "Pit Bull" ban, and certainly not with the wide sweeping ban on any breed who remotely looks like a Pit Bull. I have a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the only thing lethal about her is her tail. Why don't you get a life, or at least an education Koby?
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.08.04 (2:21 pm)
personal sob stories are for people without any education. The issue at hand, however much you seem to want to ignore it, is that according to the CDC and other agencies Bit Bulls and other "tough" breeds account for the vast majority of DRF and serious injuries.
posted by: robBob (reply)
post date: 12.08.04 (3:38 pm)
Reply to: newbie
While I disagree with the -any dog that looks like a pitbull being banned part of the legislation, something has to be done. I'm a dog lover to be sure, but I think that an American Pit Bull, for example, is about as good a choice of pet as an alligator.
Maybe the various vet friends you have can explain why it's necessary to have a pet which possesses the ability to kill a human being......or the tenacity to keep attacking someone after being SHOT by police!
posted by: big dawg pitbull (reply)
post date: 12.09.04 (8:19 am)
it is people like your self that use us statistic to judge a canadian problem. If that was the case we should compare the murders the us has and compare them to canadas or the car theifts of the rapes grow up educate your self proper and dont talk about stuff you know nothing about. You sound stupid man. they just passed same sex marriage in canada so maybe you and bryant need to get togther and make the tie. But until then i will still tie my pitbulls and produce your so called vicious dogs and i will sell them hopefully to you closed friend or neigbour .....wow you better just pack up and leave cause the pitbulls will stay.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.09.04 (8:20 am)
the message is to the guy who hates the pitbulls.......whata goof
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.09.04 (10:30 am)
big dawg pitbull way to sterotype yourself. Do you own a shotgun and live in a trailer park too?
posted by: Paul (reply)
post date: 12.18.04 (3:12 am)
It's obvious that the larger and stronger the dog, the more severe the bite will be. Anyone that own one of the dozens of breeds of large dogs needs to take resonsability to train it properly. Should we just ban all large breeds, including police dogs and search and rescue dogs?
Saying that one breed is naturally more prine to attack is rediculous. Not to get into an Animal rights Vs Human rights argument, but one could use the exact same logic to bar ethnic groups statisticly more involved in crime from immigration. That wouldn't go over so well now would it.
Lastly, many of these pit bull attacks that get reported aren't even from pit bulls. Bryant spoke of a girl being mauled by a "150lb Pit-Bull" Sorry Michael, but pit-bulls don't get nearly that big. It was some other breed. A 150 pound pit would be so overweight, it wouldn't be able to walk.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.19.04 (8:15 pm)
Reply to: Paul
I agree with you. Calling Pit Bull’s inherently vicious is silly. Also, trying to picture a 150 pound pit bull had me laughing.
As for the question of size though, the fact of the matter is that we already constrict people’s ability to take on various animals as pets. Why should such limits be species specific? Why not in certain circumstances be more specific and place limits on subspecies? The reasoning in many cases would be the same.
Why would such a ban be made to cover police dogs and rescue dogs?
I agree many incidents could be avoided if the owners had trained their dogs better. That said, what are the chances that everyone who owns a pit bull will be responsible and train it properly? I would say zero. There is always going to be a small percentage, but statistically large number, of pit bull owners who are not going to train their dogs properly.
posted by: GoodPooch (reply)
post date: 12.21.04 (9:43 am)
Why not recognize that a measurable percentage of DOG owners will continue to be irresponsible, and legislate based on that, rather than breed.
It's the height of ignorance (or stupidity) to suggest that we should punish even one innocent person because of the acts of strangers who keep their dogs in ways the rest of us find abhorrent.
Some factoids that many people don't know:
- The authors of the most comprehensive, 30 year study on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States, now wish they'd never written the report because governments are now MISUSING the crude dog bite numbers to ban specific dog breeds, despite their conclusions which indicate that owner influence is the culprit for unprovoked aggression, rather than a dog's breed.
Few people read the report's conclusions, in favour of jumping to their own, based on crude dog attack numbers.
The Dept. of Health and Human Services small, randomly-dialed telephone survey is the source for the oft-repeated "4.7 million annual dog bites" figure.
In reality, that is an estimate based on the telephone survey results from a little over 5,000 participants, whose responses were weighted by age, gender, race, and region.
Extrapolating the number of unreported dog bites from the telephone survey with the number of reported dog bites that year, the agency estimated there had been a total of 4.7 million dog bites that year. (Approx. 400,000 reported bites, and an estimated 4.3 million unreported bites.)
(A dog bite that is not severe enough to require medical attention and/or one that is not reported to authorities for some other reason, makes up the majority of unreported dog bites.)
As far as the implication that large dogs pose a greater threat...
The breed or size of the dog in no way determines the likelihood of an unwarranted bite.
There are factors that DO, however, play a role in the majority of dog biting incidents.
1. Most dogs involved in biting incidents were unsupervised at the time.
2. Most dog bite victims are unsupervised children.
3. The size of the victim, rather than the size of the dog, most accurately predicts the severity of injury. (The very smallest dog breeds have killed, while the very largest dog breeds are rarely involved in attacks.)
4. Most dog bites take place inside the owner's home or on, or directly adjacent to the owner's property.
5. Typically, the owner of the dog involved in a biting incident is also the parent, relative, friend, or acquaintance of the victim.
6. "The public" is rarely involved in unprovoked biting incidents, especially while out in public places.
7. Dogs being walked (on-leash or off and unmuzzled) by their owners in public is ALREADY the safest sceanrio for encountering dogs. Supervised dogs in public account for the LEAST number of bites.
With these known factors in mind, dog bite prevention is a relatively easy fix:
1. Simply avoid unsupervised dogs whenever possible.
2. Never leave children alone with dogs.
3. Ensure our own dogs are properly socialized and supervised at all times.
Punish the guilty, not the innocent.
posted by: GoodPooch (reply)
post date: 12.21.04 (9:58 am)
Opps!
...forgot to add...
In Toronto, the largest city in Ontario (and Canada) with presumably the largest 'pit bull' population, the number of 'pit bulls' involved in biting incidents remains miniscule.
So far, in 2004, just 0.04% of Toronto's 'pit bulls' have been reported for biting. That leaves 99.96% of Toronto's 'pit bulls' completely innocent of these charges.
(If if we apply the U.S. estimates to Toronto, that would, at worst, suggest that 0.4% of Toronto's 'pit bulls' have bitten, with nearly all of those bites being not only domestic, but innocuous. It would still leave 99% of Toronto's 'pit bulls' completey innocent of charges of attacking.)
More importantly, nearly 90% of dog bites in the city of Toronto in 2004 have not involved 'pit bulls', but rather other dog breeds.
Other regions show the same findings.
'Pit bulls' end up in the headlines disproportionately, not in actual dog bite statistics.
At best what can be said is that a dog OF ANY BREED that is encouraged or allowed to behave aggressively is more likely to be involved in a biting incident, one day.
Where 'pit bulls' are concerned, probably no breed suffers more from irresponsible ownership that they.
Yet, with over 99% of 'pit bulls' never being involved in a biting incident, it is clear evidence that even irresopnsibly-owned 'pit bulls' will never bite.
In most Canadian municipalities, German Shepherds and Labradors top the bite statistics.
Since so few people are killed by dogs in Canada, the dog-related fatality statistics by breed are not terribly relevant. With just one death per year, on average, we have to go back 20 years to find 20 cases. There is little statistical value in such a small sampling gathered from such a large time frame.
Society (and its view of dog ownership, expectations of dog ownership, and government interference with the proven methods for properly socializing dogs) is dramatically different in 2004 than it was in 1984.
"It is hard to fight a battle against fear when your only tools are fact and truth." - Dr. Gary Goeree, DVM
"Prejudice is as blind to common sense as it is deaf to the explanations of science." - from the documentary, "Human Mutants"
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.22.04 (11:11 am)
For over a decade I have been around a large number of pit bulls from the ones I own, to friends dogs, to fosters and rescues and attending pit shows. I myself or my children have NEVER been hurt by any of these dogs. The only pits I have met who have any sort of behavioral problems were owned by inept owners. Unless someone has extensive experience with this breed your opinion, although you have a right to state it, is meaningless.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.22.04 (11:06 pm)
There are hundreds of thousands of dog bites a year in the States that require medical attention. By no means is this an insignificant number. Not surprisingly “tough” breads account for disproportionately high number of such bites, as they do a disproportionately high number of DRF. Year after year Pit Bulls and Rottweilers head the list.
That said, the vast majority of “tough” dogs are perfectly well behaved and will never harm anyone. But so what? It is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty what dogs will be involved in an incident. Related to this is the fact that, given the current level of state involvement, it is equally impossible to determine what prospective owners will train and treat their pets responsibly.
The lives of people prohibited from owning such breeds are not sufficiently poorer for it. They can always get another breed of dog. Conversely, the lives of many of the victims of such attacks are sufficiently poorer.
Reading some of these comments I get the feeling that some owners have taken the proposed ban personally, as if it means they are being accused of somehow doing something wrong. Chances are very good, however, that they have done nothing wrong; their dog is well behaved and friendly. Such attitudes reflect a certain ignorance of purpose of blanket bans such as this one.
Something similar happened when there was talk of banning spanking. People where up in arms saying how dare the government tell me I am wrong to spank my kids. The fact of the matter is that the rightness or wrongness of spanking had nothing to do with the proposed ban. Those wanting the ban wanted it because there is evidence that such bans are useful in battling child abuse. Not to put to fine a point on it, but it is entirely consistent to say that there is nothing wrong with spanking, but because such blanket bans help reduce child abuse, I am all for such a ban. Something similar can be said about the proposed the pit bull ban.
Now, as a Utilitarian, I find such reasoning conducive. However, enough has been said by the opponents of such a ban to get me thinking about whether such a ban would actually work (i.e., reduce the number of severe dog bites and DRF).
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.23.04 (1:42 pm)
I think you are wrong. My life would be signifigantly poorer for not being able to own this noble breed. I would prefer to have no dog if I could not own a pit. To know them is to love them. I am not a dog person. I am a pit person. I know I speak the truth for so many.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.23.04 (2:45 pm)
The enjoyment you get out of owning a pit bull is a small concern when measured against the suffering of the victims of serious dog bites and the families of the victims of DRF.
posted by: candyperfumegirl (reply)
post date: 12.23.04 (3:22 pm)
Hi ho, an American here and a Pit Bull advocate. What none of you have touched on here - and what Bryant can't even begin to understand, given his irrationality – is the nature of a dog bite or an attack. What is the cause? Determine that and you'd take care of the effect. Without having to ban anything. Jesus. Everyone always wants to throw the baby out with teh bath water.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.23.04 (5:01 pm)
Koby, I must disagree again. My pit bulls aren't some small measure of enjoyment. They define my life. Where I live. My choice of mates {can't live with a non dog person!}. My choices of daily activities. They affect every aspect of my life, just like my children do, and have for over a decade. They aren't some meaningless, small measure of "enjoyment" like a new pair of shoes. They, like my children are my life. They have never harmed anyone and although I sympathize with anyone who has been harmed by any dog you can not have innocent people and dogs pay for the crime of others. Pit bulls have become the scapegoat for all bad dogs. I remember of one perticular incident of a girl being attacked in Vancouver by what the media labeled as "pit bulls". Everyone was up in arms about those terrible dogs. It was later determined that the dogs were bull mastiff/Rotti crosses and suddenly it was about how those poor dogs were neglected yard dogs. My friend who has owned, between her and her childs father, 3 pit bulls that have been awesome family dogs and they just had to make the difficult dicision to put down their mutt of unknown breeding because it has attacked a few people. I also remember reading a statement by a local animal control worker who was brutally attacked by a Rotti and she does not support a breed ban. She said in all her years of dealing with literally hundreds of pit bulls she has never been biten by one but has been biten by many other breeds. I would like to know how many pit bulls you know Koby? Why is it the only people who seem to support the ban are the ones who have no experience with the breed and are only basing thier opinion on heresay. Why is it that all the people who deal with them on a day in day out basis from owners to trainers to vets to animal control officers all defend the breed. Because they are basing their opinion on reality not basing it on sensationalized media hype. I know personally of many breeds of dogs that have badly attacked people or killed animals and no talk of banning the breeds. I am not trying to bad mouth other breeds either because in all cases I personally know of the owner was inept and irresponsible in their care of the animal. If you want to base your opinions on statistics how about the fact that men make up the biggest percentage of rapists. Should all men be castrated? You know what Koby, who knows not of what he speaks, I challenge you, to go out and meet some pits. Get a hold of the pit club where you live, or a local breeder or the SPCA, and tell them you would like to meet some pits and judge for yourself. Once you have met one hundred pits than maybe you will be able to have a ligitimate opinion instead of just repeating what you heard. Put your money where your mouth is.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.23.04 (5:03 pm)
By the way there are no fatalities in Canada caused by pits but there has been by other breeds. Just for your information.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.24.04 (11:45 am)
By the way robBob...there has been cases of very small dogs killing people. Apparently you are talking, like Koby, with lack of any experience or knowledge. My dogs are living proof that when raised properly pit bulls are loving, gentle creatures. They welcomed to birth of both may children with wagging tails and gentle kisses. They are now far into thier senior years and will pass on without ever harming anyone person or animal. An alligator? Whatever. Why don't you base your comments on actual experience instead of nothing but what you have heard. At any one time in my home there have been over 5 pit bulls all playing together, interacting with the children, the cat, guests and I have never had anyone injured. My 95 pound male pit bull has a 6 pound male miniture pincher as a best friend. They welcome new people and new foster dogs like long lost friends. I offer you the same challenge as Koby. Why don't you go out and meet some pits and see how wonderfull they are in the right hands then mabe your opinion would be worth something. An owner of any breed is responsible for what they tame or fail to tame
. I am fully responsible, regardless what the laws say just because I take responsibility for it, for what my dogs do. With that in mind I do what has to be done which is training , socializing and confining my dogs properly. Anyone who doesn't do that shouldn't have a dog. Period. What is worse than teaching a dog to be aggressive is failing to teach a dog anything at all. To all you irresponsible dog owners out there, and you know who you are, thanks alot for skrewing it up for everyone else. Do the world and you dogs a favor and give them to someone who can handle them!
posted by: Zoe (reply)
post date: 12.27.04 (12:23 pm)
And by the way....everytime someone, whether it be media or some other Joe Blow No Nothing perpetuates the negative pit bull stereo type {instead of the reality} it just encourages some idiot to go out and get a pit so they can have some "tough dog". Usually they are disappointed, finding the breed to friendly and not what they expected, so they end up either ditching the dog, neglecting it because it is a disappointment or doing unspeakable things to turn it mean. So really the problem isn't pit bulls. The problem is stupid people who speak when they don't know what they are talking about and spread lies and myths or people with mental difficiencies who should never be responsible for an innocent animal in the first place! I state the truth about this topic that all dog educated people know to be the truth. This is not a pit bull problem...it is a person problem. Wake up.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.27.04 (12:44 pm)
Reply to: Zoe
I do not know how much clearer I can be. Yes, problem has more to do with people than with pit bulls. However, you seem to have completely missed the point. There is no way to prevent stupid people from owning bit bulls without a blanket ban. Hence, a ban is being proposed and hopefully this will lower the number of DRF and serious dog bites. The ban has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with punishing “innocent” pit bulls or for that matter guilty ones. Wake up.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.27.04 (1:07 pm)
Reply to: newbie
“I am fully responsible, regardless what the laws say just because I take responsibility for it, for what my dogs do. With that in mind I do what has to be done which is training , socializing and confining my dogs properly. Anyone who doesn't do that shouldn't have a dog. Period.”
I agree. However, the crux of the matter is how to determine who will take these steps and who will not. I do not think there is a cost effective and efficient way of determining this.
“Why is it the only people who seem to support the ban are the ones who have no experience with the breed and are only basing their opinion on. heresay."
What makes you think that I do not have any experience with the dog? I do and personally I have had no problem with pit bulls I have been in contact with. That said, my personal experiences count for very little. Not only is antidotal, I do not have any professional training.
What matters are CDC stats (the most comprehensive North American statistics) showing that year after year after year Pit bulls and Rottweilers are involved with nearly half of DRF in the US and similar stats that show that “tough” breeds account for a disproportionate number of dog bites needing medical attention.
posted by: Zoe (reply)
post date: 12.27.04 (3:25 pm)
Confining a well behaved dog with a muzzle and short leash and not allowing it in public parks is not punishing it? Creating mass hysteria so people are kicking innocent dogs and abusing their owners physically and verbally not punishment? Perpetuating a stereotype which will continue abuse of an already abused breed not a punishment? Murdering countless numbers of pits
that are now already in the pounds and rescues not punishment? There is a way to stop any idiot owner of any breed without punishing the innocent and that is making a law that punishes irresponsible owners for their "ACTIONS" in failing to control thier dog of any breed not a blanket ban that punishes one breed of dog and their owners who have done nothing wrong. The reason I don't think you have experience with the breed is because if you did you would be fighting this like everyone else that sees how unfair this is. I also think comparing Canada to American statistics is very faulty considering the number of gang related dog fighting that goes on. It is a MUCH bigger issue in the States than it is here. Trust me...I am wide awake. When I wake up every morning and look into my dogs eyes and watch how loving and gentle they are with my children and everyone they meet I know that this ban is wrong. So wrong the concept makes me sick to my stomach. Do you even own a dog? Do you know that these new laws will affect ALL dogs owners on a deeper level than most might know? Read about the fine points on Canada's Guide To Dogs BSL section to see what it means for all dogs owners. Not just owners of pit bulls. Take a look at what is going on in Germany right now. Obviously a "tough" dog is generally going to do more damage hence the importance of training, socializing and proper confinement. So again the responsibility lies with the owner. If laws actually held people accountable for their actions or lack of actions with their dogs than it would deter people from getting a dog unless they were sure they knew how to handle it. The reason it may appear that pits and Rotti's disproportionately bite more often have nothing to do with the breeds being more aggressive it has to do with the fact they are the fad breeds right now that have the tough image so they unfortunately are owned my more meat heads. Again, notice the pattern? A HUMAN PROBLEM NOT A DOG PROBLEM LIKE MICHAEL BRYANT IS TRYING TO SAY. Just wait till these meat heads get there hands on some Cane Corsos, or Filas, or Presa Canario's. These dogs are way bigger and were bred for use as guard dogs. Then they will be the next breeds to suffer. And actually statics are not what matters most. They are not always accurate and NEVER tell the full story as to why a dog has bitten. Each case should be looked at individually.
posted by: Zoe (reply)
post date: 12.27.04 (4:11 pm)
Concerning your comments comparing pits to guns I again think you miss the point there too. Guns are inanimate objects . Pits are living creatures that feel pain, emotionally and physically. They learn, and grow and love. They only know the life they are exposed to. My dogs have been exposed to so much love they are over flowing with it and their joy spills over to all that meet them. The rescues I have dealt with have also been filled with love that has slowly erased the abuse and neglect they have suffered at the hands of humans. These sentient beings deserve more consideration than a cold hard tool. I don't believe it is sensible people banding together to ban pits. It is misinformed, paranoid, inexperienced, prejudiced, heartless and cruel people who are party to bringing about another black mark on the face of Canada. I am glad I no longer live in Ontario but I am ashamed that some of my fellow Canadians would even consider a law that punishes the innocent.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.27.04 (11:01 pm)
Reply to: Zoe
“There is a way to stop any idiot owner of any breed without punishing the innocent and that is making a law that punishes irresponsible owners for their "ACTIONS" in failing to control thier dog of any breed not a blanket ban that punishes one breed of dog and their owners who have done nothing wrong.”
There is no such law that will stop idiots from owning a pit bull. The point of the ban is to prevent harm from coming to people in the first place and not punishing dogs and owners after the fact.
“When I wake up every morning and look into my dogs eyes and watch how loving and gentle they are with my children and everyone they meet I know that this ban is wrong.”
They or it?
“the responsibility lies with the owner.”
It does lie with the owner, but that changes nothing.
“The reason it may appear that pits and Rotti's disproportionately bite more often have nothing to do with the breeds being more aggressive it has to do with the fact they are the fad breeds right now that have the tough image so they unfortunately are owned my more meat heads.”
Yes meatheads owning dogs is a problem. That is what I have been saying all along.
“Just wait till these meat heads get there hands on some Cane Corsos, or Filas, or Presa Canario's.”
Yes that is why I think for such a ban to work it has to been widened to include all “tough dogs”.
“And actually statics are not what matters most. They are not always accurate and NEVER tell the full story as to why a dog has bitten. Each case should be looked at individually.”
They should be looked at collectively and individually. Statistics tell us a lot. They document pit bulls are involved in a hugely disproportionate number of DRF and injuries. The individual case files provide us with insight as to how will might change this if at all.
You: “Concerning your comments comparing pits to guns I again think you miss the point there too. Guns are inanimate objects . Pits are living creatures that feel pain, emotionally and physically.”
Me: “Speaking of which, it surprised me that some Ontario residents opposed to the ban have taken up the old NRA line and adopted it. It is not the fault of the breed. It is the fault of various pit bull owners, a disproportionately large number it would seem, to train the dog properly. Sorry folks: seeing as how a pit bulls are LIVING things and guns not, I think the analogy breaks down.”
I am glad I do not live in Ontario too, but for in entirely different reasons (e.g. it is too cold in the winter and too muggy in the summer.)
posted by: Zoe (reply)
post date: 12.28.04 (10:54 am)
Well I am sure the only thing we can agree on is to disagree. I tell you though, I am ashamed to live in a Canada that will punish the innocent because it is more "convenient". We as humans are in a sad state when we let fear and paranoia dictate our actions instead of reason and compassion. I think it is the people, like you, who support the ban, who should be forced to go to the pounds and hold in your arms the innocent animals that have already been let down by humans, while they breath their last breath as they are euthenized. Maybe then your cold, hard heart would feel an ounce of compassion for an animal whose only crime is being born.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.28.04 (4:33 pm)
Reply to: Zoe
Look there are two things to consider. First, would such a ban work? If not, is there a way of making it work. No sane person wants to see a ban imposed if it is not going to do anything or is going to make things worse. As I said, this question in my mind is not yet fully answered. The second thing to consider is this: if such a ban does work (i.e., reduces the number of DRF and serious injuries), is it worth the costs? As to this question, I have a hard time taking you seriously at all. You seem to think that the suffering of human victims should take a back seat to concerns you have about muzzling such dogs in public. In every one of your posts so far you have droned on about the poor “innocent” pit bulls well all the while bemoaning the media’s propensity to play up the human angle of a pit bull or Rottweiler attack. The media reports are emotionally loaded and the media attention such attacks garner does distort the frequency of such attacks. That said, least you forget, read the following story so as to get an idea of what kind of incidents such a ban is designed to prevent. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/11/04/dogmaul_nb031104.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.28.04 (7:06 pm)
Obviously being a parent I find that a terrible tragedy but considering the fact my sons father was killed by a drunk driver, I didn't demand that all cars were banned. They are the cause of more deaths than any dog but no one wants to ban them. What do they do in a situation like that. Punish the irresponsible driver. Considering the child was left unattended and allowed unsupervised access to those dogs who is to blame? Especially considering the fact there was an in heat female there! Anyone that has a dog should educate themselves to the fact a male dog can become quite aggressive with an in heat female around. Read some info on the GoodPooch.com website. There ARE other alternatives to a breed ban. Education is one. A very simple concept but very effective, fair and humane. I don't really care if you take me seriously or not. Muzzling pit bulls that have never or will never bite will not stop your neighbours Lab from biting or that Shar Pei or that Husky. It is giving the public a false sense of security. I have no problem with muzzling a dog that needs to be but I do have a problem muzzling a dog that is no threat. IT IS NOT A BREED ISSUE. If I thought for a minute any of my dogs were a danger I wouldn't muzzle them...I would put them down. That is how much consideration I have for other people. But that being said I will defend a dog that has proven loyal and gentle and harmless regardless of breed. You cannot punish any animal, human or canine, for the crimes of another just because they share common ancestors.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 12.28.04 (8:45 pm)
Reply to: newbie
First let me say, I am sorry about your loss.
As I have said repeatedly, most pit bulls will never be involved in a serious incident and having people educating themselves about just about anything always helps. However, the fact of the matter is that, as you have already admitted, a certain number of “meatheads” will take on a pit bull as a pet and you can not exactly write a law that says every meat head must have his dog muzzled. The law is by its nature imprecise. Add to this the fact that sometimes, threw no fault of the owner, a dog will attack for unforeseeable reasons. They are, after all, living things and not inanimate objects.
Why not ban cars too you ask. Well, imagine the world without cars. Things would be radically different and, dare I say, our lives would be the worse for it. Cars have a certain utility. Now, imagine people not being able to own pit bulls in Ontario after the current crop of beloved pit bulls die away. Would things be radically different? Hardly. So, they take on a lab instead of pit pull. Life will go on for pit bull fans and, if the ban does work, less people will suffer from dog bits and less will be killed.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (10:51 am)
http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (11:09 am)
Reply to: newbie
moronic and completly misses the point
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (12:52 pm)
http://www.samthedogtrainer.com/Articles_Dog%20Bite%20Statistics.htm
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (5:21 pm)
The best things in life are not measured with statistics, cost effectiveness or convenience. "He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion."
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (6:26 pm)
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (6:26 pm)
"Educate don't legislate."
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (6:36 pm)
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (7:50 pm)
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/courtneyinquest.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (7:54 pm)
DEFINITELY READ THIS KOBY
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/waddellinquest.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (7:56 pm)
http://wwwdoglegislationcouncilcanada.org/reports.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.29.04 (7:57 pm)
STATISTICS
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/statistics.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:04 am)
http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:06 am)
http://www.canadasguidetodogs.com/breederinfo11.htm
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:08 am)
http://advocatesfortheunderdog.com/index.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:09 am)
http://www.kerwoodwolf.com/PitBan2.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:24 am)
http://www.killbill132.com/index.htm
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:31 am)
"Behind every aggressive dog... there is an irresponsible owner."
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:33 am)
http://www.thedogplace.com/library/articles160.htm
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:35 am)
http://cdarontario.tripod.com/
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:36 am)
http://www.dapbt.org/welcome.htm
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:40 am)
http://www.fortunecity.com/business/bull/1547/
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:49 am)
"Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole."
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (11:26 am)
Do you know that under the proposed Bill 132 that any animal seized can be sold for animal research? Do you know that under this proposed law police would be allowed to enter your home, without a warrant and take your dog using "whatever force necesary" whether your dog is guilty or not. This is a badly written, badly thought out piece of legislation that leaves openings for much abuse and misuse. Concidering most people consider their dogs cherished family members we need to stop it before this sickness becomes law. This applies to ALL dogs not just pit bulls. Educate yourself. Your dog may be next!
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (12:18 pm)
http://www.healthypet.com/library_view.aspx?ID=16&sid=1
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (2:54 pm)
If one truely believes that eradicating all the so called "tough" breeds will create some kind of human/canine utopia then they are truely naive. Someone willing to create a monster out of a Presa Canario is just as capable of creating a monster out of a Labrador Retriever.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (3:02 pm)
The people who did the CDC study are beside themselves at the misuse of the study. The pit bull and Rottwieller information is being taken completely out of context. It was a 20 year study that proved without a doubt that the key factor was the fact that the dogs most likely to bite were the ones most popular at the time. Dobermans topped the list when they were most popular. People who attempt to slander a particular breed will use a small part of the study to prove their point. Laws need to be generic, not breed specific so it will work regardless of the present dog fads.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.30.04 (9:46 pm)
"Histories are more full of examples of the fidelity of dogs than of friends." -Alexander Pope
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 12.31.04 (10:56 am)
WHO SUPPORTS BSL?
http://www.goldenhorseshoeapbtc.com/
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.04.05 (4:19 pm)
AN APOLOGY TO BREED BAN ENTHUSIASTS
http://forums.dogzonline.com.au/index.php?showtopic=19066
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.05.05 (11:56 am)
One thing I noticed about the CDC study was the fact that all dogs were labeled by "breed" {eg: German Shepard, Rottweiler, etc...} with the exception of them using the terms "pit bull type" and "husky type". Now I wonder what breeds would be under "pit bull type". If the breed was actually used like with the other dogs which in all probability included breeds that were short haired and muscular {like Am. Bull Dogs, Dogo Argentinians, Presas or any number of breeds mistaken as pit bulls} the number for actual pit bull attacks would be way lower. Because of peoples lack of education of what a pit bull really is pit bulls get blamed for more than they actually do. When people aren't sure of the breed but see some short coated, brindle dog it is automatically labelled a pit bull whether it is or not.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.05.05 (4:07 pm)
Reply to: newbie
If the breed was not known they said so. They did not rely on people's reports.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.08.05 (5:29 pm)
http://www.pbrc.net/misc/PitBullBook8x101.pdf
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.08.05 (5:31 pm)
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~pmccbe/pitbull/index.html
posted by: i.luv.pit.bulls (reply)
post date: 01.12.05 (9:20 am)
Agreed. Pitbulls are not the only ones who bite. My brother got bit by a jack russel...are you going to ban them too? Look, it all depends how the owner treats and trains the dog. If the owner wants it to be in dog fights they will train them that way, if they wants a good loyal family dog then they will be trained that way. You really need to consider your choice because soon your going to have to ban everydog, because every breed bites...THINK ABOUT IT!
posted by: pitbull.gurl (reply)
post date: 01.12.05 (9:23 am)
So what if a Japanese Canadain bites someone, are you going to deport them, what if a Trini bites someone? are you going to deport them? i think you get my point so maybe you should reconsider what your doing to people who love their pets. You love your lab...i love my pitbull, but i bet yours has bitten
posted by: pitbull.gurl (reply)
post date: 01.12.05 (9:23 am)
So what if a Japanese Canadain bites someone, are you going to deport them, what if a Trini bites someone? are you going to deport them? i think you get my point so maybe you should reconsider what your doing to people who love their pets. You love your lab...i love my pitbull, but i bet yours has bitten
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.12.05 (10:51 am)
pit bulls are like guns
guns can be life saving when in the right hands, when placed in the wrong hands it can be used as a killer. Maybe yo should take that to consideration beore you open yourbig pitbull racist mouth!
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.12.05 (11:02 am)
wow koby, you have kids? Now how did you and micheal bryant do that?
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.12.05 (10:18 pm)
Reply to: newbie
God, what is your with you people? Do you all drive pickups, own guns, hate gays, chew, have several convictions for domestic abuse and live in a trailer park with your three pit bulls. No: then post something half way intelligent.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.15.05 (2:26 pm)
Reply to: newbie
whoa newbie, didnt mean to offend you. im saying about the gun thing that pitbulls are AWESOME animals, but when they're placed in the wrong hands and they are abused they are forced to do things they hate. I LOVE pitbulls, rottweilers, etc. I think they're awsome dogs and they are sooo misjudged by both the media and they public. I guess i got a little upset, wait, ALOT upset at what koby said about pitbulls, i personally think we should outlaw him. But i think i maybe did get out of line by calling him gay, but i have absolutely NO hate towards gays or lesbians, in fact im against the law for outlawing gay marriages, its none of the publics buisness. As for the pickup truck, i wish i could have one, to take my dogs to the dog park without having to put them all in a little car, but dreams shall be dreams. No convictions (im only 16), no trailer park etc. You want something half way intelligent, here it is: People who dont own pitbulls should keep their mouths shut, and make NO judgement towards them.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.15.05 (2:27 pm)
did that mean newbie who said those things about trailer parks etc. did you hate pitbulls because you said, "have several convictions for domestic abuse and live in a trailer park with your three pit bulls" if you mean i fight those dogs, GOD forbid you meant that, I would do NO SUCH THING
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 02.05.05 (4:19 pm)
NATIONAL CANINE RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Severe maulings occur with all breeds of dogs, contrary to what you might hear from the media or other sources. See if you can pass the test below ?
Can severe or fatal dog attacks be predicted by breed?
As the public and politicians become increasingly ignorant
of the factors that contribute to canine aggression, they are
increasingly becoming dependent on relying on a breed's
identification to predict future behaviors or the "dangerousness"
of a dog.
For those who believe they can predict a dog's behavior by breed,
or for those who believe they can legislate away severe or fatal dog
attacks by banning certain breeds, the following questionnaire is offered:
(All the scenarios presented are actual cases of a severe dog attack.
The correct breed(s) responsible for the attack are listed at the end).
1. Feb. 2001 - A 1-year-old Pennsylvania boy was critically injured
by his grandmother's:
a. Intact female Akita
b. Intact Male Rottweiler
c. Female Pit bull w/puppies
2. Jan. 2002 - An 11-year-old Las Vegas boy sustained life-threatening
injuries when:
a. He was attacked in his yard by his neighbor's loose Pit Bulls.
b. He attemtped to feed the family's 4 kenneled Great Danes.
c. He tried to hug his grandmother's Chow Chow.
3. Sept. 2002 - A 5-year-old Ramapo, NY, girl lay in ICU for 3 weeks and
required over 400 stitches after being attacked by:
a. A Chow & 3 Jack Russell Terriers.
b. A Rottweiler & 4 Pugs.
c. A Pit Bull and 2 Cocker Spaniels.
4. Nov. 2002- A 10-year-old Connecticut girl was hospitalized for 4 days
and required surgery after she was found lying on the ground being
severely mauled by:
a. 4 Beagles
b. 5 Brittany Spaniels
c. 3 Boxer dogs
5. Jun. 1998 - A Tulsa, Oklahoma woman was severely mauled and
confined to a wheelchair after walking her 6-week-old puppy in the
park and attacked by:
a. Chesapeake bay retriever
b. Pit Bull
c. German short-haired pointer
6. Nov. 2003 - A female jogger was severely attacked by:
a. A Rottweiler that broke loose from the yard it was chained in.
b. An K-9 police dog that escaped from his handler's yard.
c. A Newfoundland used in pet-therapy that barged out his owner's
front door.
7. A 48-year-old Tennessee woman was severely injured in her own
back yard by her neighbor's:
a. 3 Catahoula dogs
b. 3 Briards
c. 3 Border Collies
8. Dec. 2002- A 6-week-old Maryland boy was dragged out of his
playpen and so severely mauled that he needed to be resuscitated
on the way to the hospital after being attacked by:
a. The family's female Bullmastiff
b. The family's male Golden Retriever
c. The family's male Dachshund
9. April 2000 - A 7-month-old California girl needed to be hospitalized
after being severely bitten in the head by her grandmother's:
a. Labrador Retriever
b. Shar-Pei
c. Irish Setter
10. Jan. 2003- An Atlanta woman and her 7-year-old son received serious bite wounds when:
a. The boy was attacked after tripping over the family
Doberman
b. The mother spanked 1 of 4 Pit bulls in the apartment for soiling
the rug
c. The boy attempted to ride on the back of the family's Rottweiler.
11. March 2004 - Two rescued stray dogs were being fostered at a home in Preble County. The one dog attacked a 2-year-old boy that
wandered too close to the dog's food bowl. The other dog attacked
the first dog, causing it to release the boy. The attacking dog that
caused the boy to need over 300 stitches was:
a. Male Dalmation
b. Male Pit Bull
c. Male Samoyed
The dog that "rescued" the boy was a:
d. Female Chow X
e. Female Akita X
f. Male Lab X
12. Sept. 2003 - An 8-year-old boy need over 100 stitches after being
bitten in the face by:
a. St. Bernard
b. Labrador Retriever
c. Rough-coated Collie
Answers:
1. b) Intact Male Rottweiler
2. b) Attempting to feed 4 Great Danes
3. b) Rottweiler & 4 Pugs (the Pugs did participate in this attack)
4. b) 5 Brittany Spaniels
5. c) German short-haired pointer
6. b) K-9 police dog
7. a) 3 Catahoula dogs
8. c) Male Dachshund
9. b) Shar-Pei
10. b) Mother hit 1 of the 4 Pit Bulls
11. a) Male Dalmation & e) Female Akita X
12. b) Labrador Retriever
posted by: APBT (reply)
post date: 02.08.05 (6:31 pm)
Omg I did that quiz, IT ROCKS. You should show that quiz to everybody, and I bet everyone goes for the pitbull!
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 02.10.05 (7:26 pm)
Fatal Dog Attacks - CANADA
A spate of recent attacks by Pit Bulls and Rottweilers have unleashed a storm of negative publiclity and sentiment towards these two breeds in a number of areas in Canada.
In an attempt to gain a better perspective of the problem with canine aggresson towards humans and to disprove the current perception that severe and fatal attacks is a phenomena exclusive to Pit Bulls and Rottweilers, the following information is presented.
Fatal Dog Attacks - Canada: 1983 - 2003
1983 (2) Farm Dogs Roaming dogs kill child (Edmonton)
1987 (1) German Shep X Chained dog attacked child (Vernon)
1988 (1) German Shep Unsupervised child (Quebec)
1990 (1) Chow Chow Attack on newborn (Ontario)
1993 (1) Sled dogs Chained dogs kill child (N.W.T.)
1993 (5) Sled dogs Attacked by loose dogs (Alberta)
1994 (1) Maremma Sheepdog Family dog killed child (Ontario)
1995 (2) Am Staffs Drunken man provoked dogs (Ontario)
1995 (2) German Sheps Killed by uncle's dogs (Saskatchewan)
1996 (?) Strays Child killed by stray dogs (Manitoba)
1997 (1) Sled dog Chained dog w/pups (Saskatchewan)
1998 (?) Sled dogs Pack chained on sea ice (Iqaluit)
1998 (1) Bullmastiff Playing w/neighbor's dog (Ontario)
1998 (8) Lab/Huskies Xs Mother & son killed by pack (Newfoundland)
1998 (6) Strays Boy killed by strays (Manitoba)
1999 (1) Husky X Neighbor's dog (British Columbia)
1999 (1) Husky One of 24 chained dogs (Quebec)
1999 (1) Husky X Grandfather's dog (N.W.T.)
1999 (?) Strays Girl killed by starving dogs (Alberta)
2002 (2) Lab X & Rott Attacked in field (Ontario)
2003 (3) Rottweilers Boy wandered into yard (New Brunswick)
2003 (4) German Shep Xs Grandmother's dogs (Manitoba)
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 02.10.05 (7:28 pm)
http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/index.html
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 02.14.05 (3:56 pm)
No doubt!
posted by: APBT (reply)
post date: 02.19.05 (9:01 am)
Reply to: newbie
GO Newbie! *waves hands in the air* whoo, take THAT koby, and try to defend yourself
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 03.01.05 (4:21 pm)
We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
THE DOGS OF ONTARIO NEED YOUR HELP.
Why should you care about the proposed ban of pitbulls, Staffies and Amstaffs in Ontario? Especially if you're in another part of Canada, or the world? After all, "the sacrifice of the few if the vast majority is spared", what could be easier?
This is why. Breed specific legislation ("BSL") historically bans one breed at a time, then another, then another. BSL slowly erodes dog owners' rights. Once one breed has been banned, the precedent is set and all breeds are at risk; indeed, all dogs are at risk. Under BSL, the list of banned breeds usually gets longer over time. Italy is a prime example with its BSL targeting over 90 breeds, including breeds usually considered benign such as the bearded collie.
BSL enforcement relies on the arbitrary judgement of police and animal control officers who may not have the training, expertise or even the legal right (depending on legal interpretation of the Canada Animal Pedigree Act) to identify a dog's breed. Seizure of what the officer thinks is a banned-breed dog may result in the dog being euthanized or sold to a research laboratory.
Ontario's Bill 132 permits an officer to enter your home without a warrant and seize or destroy your dog, regardless of breed. Destroy your dog in your home. It happened in England and Germany, it can happen here.
Are you now looking at your dog and starting to feel very uneasy, even a bit afraid?
You should.
Your breed may be next.
The DLCC has now joined forces with four others - the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Canada, the Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Terrier Club, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada, and Shirley Bell of Bellcrest Boxers - as Banned Aid, to fight BSL in Ontario.
Banned Aid has engaged Clayton Ruby as Banned Aid's legal counsel to fight BSL on behalf of Ontario dog owners and breeders at the provincial level. This fight is going to be expensive; the early estimate for the legal challenge is $100,000.
We need your financial support to mount this battle against BSL in Ontario and possibly establish national precedent. Every dollar will help. There are several ways you can donate.
1. You can mail your cheque payable to the DLCC to:
Cathy Prothro
351 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3S4
Canada
2. For your convenience you can deposit from any bank directly into the Banned Aid Legal Fund by depositing to:
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
Penhorn Mall,
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Account 00513 010 1526839
3. You can also make an online payment from your financial institution's website by sending a bill payment to treasurer@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org
4. You may prefer to donate by PAY PAL. Please go to www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org and click on the "Donate!" link for the Pay Pal tool.
5. Send cheques or money orders directly to Mr Ruby at the following address,c/o BANNED AID LEGAL CHALLENEGE FUND
Ruby & Edwardh
11 Prince Arthur Ave.
Toronto, Ont.
M5R1B2
416 964 9664
6. Soon, you can bid on donated items in our online auction. You can have some fun and buy some gifts! Look for the BANNED AID AUCTION on www.bannedaid.com !
The Dog Legislation Council of Canada ("DLCC") is a Canada-wide non-profit organization dedicated to promoting responsible dog ownership, assisting provincial and municipal governments to develop effective licensing and enforcement legislation, and educating the public regarding dog bite prevention. The DLCC does not support any legislation that targets a breed instead of the real problem - the irresponsible owner. Its members are expected to abide by and promote the DLCC Code of Ethics.
The DLCC is a proud member of the Banned Aid Legal Challenge Fund.
Contact: president@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org or vicepresident@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org.
Website: http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/
For more information, please contact:
info@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org
www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org
www.bannedaid.com
posted by: pit lover (reply)
post date: 05.30.07 (6:44 pm)
Reply to: newbie
Well I disagree.Those facts are on the same bases as what the media does one to many times.They classify anything that looks similar to a pit bull , a pit bull. It could be a dog that just has the same body type! It is the same thing as always blaming the person of ethnisity....If it looks close then thats what it is!!! Im more sick of the dog owners that mistreat these dogs dont train them in or out of the home. Or cant afford a dog get it anyways throw them in the back yard.Then they get out have no social training and thats how things happen! In my opinion they should have every dog go through a test to tetermine how that dogs behavior is right along with the owner!!Breed has nothing to do with the ingnorance of people. If you have a big dog make sure you have the time forit and muzzle the dog when its out so know one losses. Also the people responsible for fighting these innocent creatures are the ones who should be banned and prosicuted to the fullist ability of the law!!!!
posted by: (reply)
post date: 12.18.07 (11:34 pm)
this is BS i own a pit bull and a german shepard guess whos bit more people. well it the shepord my pit bull has never bit a person in her life. it is not the dogs fault its stupid people who dont understand how much time and obiedence it takes to own an agresive dog. mabey you should put a ban on the people aloud to buy that breed of dog. make them do a test or something. any way makes me glad to live in Alberta.