Pit Bulls - not personal attacks please

[Garrett]

http://www.pijaccanada.com/English/PDF/NCAC Eng NR_PIJAC-both.pdf

NOT a pit bull - supported site.
Of course, I haven't seen ANY data or studies indicating that a breed ban is either workable or necessary.
So much for "peer review". LOL

They merely advocate a different solution... but essentially agree some breeds are more hazardous than others and that ownership is an issue. I do not think ownership rules will change anything. I also see no reason to own one of these dogs other than insecurity. The Winnipeg ban has worked well enough for me...

Need more?
"Researchers cautioned the breakdown does not necessarily indicate which dogs provide the highest risk of fatal attacks because incomplete registration of dogs and mixed breeds make it hard to determine how many of each type of dog Americans own. "

Sure there is some fuzziness in the numbers... big deal. Maybe the numbers are higher (that was a joke, kinda). Once again... offer some numbers.. not innuendo or platitudes..

I am still waiting for the $10k in escrow...

 

[Ranger68]

They merely advocate a different solution... but essentially agree some breeds are more hazardous than others and that ownership is an issue. I do not think ownership rules will change anything. I also see no reason to own one of these dogs other than insecurity. The Winnipeg ban has worked well enough for me...



Sure there is some fuzziness in the numbers... big deal. Maybe the numbers are higher (that was a joke, kinda). Once again... offer some numbers.. not innuendo or platitudes..

I am still waiting for the $10k in escrow...

A different solution? Can you read? They say, quite clearly, THAT YOUR SOLUTION IS A BAD ONE.

LOL

I think we can put your ridiculous notion to rest.

Folks, there's no evidence that a pit bull ban anywhere has reduced the number of dog attacks, or that the bans are even effective at doing whatever they're trying to do.
If you PERCEIVE a problem, there are better ways of dealing with it.

If you're going to continue to argue with me, post some studies that back your point of view. Then we'll continue.

'Night.

 

[Garrett]

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

An excerpt:
"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull type dogs and Rottweilers)," read carefully here "other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates."

I guess you're going to call the CDC site one run by pit bull owners now, huh? LOL

I have yet to see any counter-facts. I have yet to see ANY INDEPENDENT STUDY FROM ANY SOURCE indicating that your course of action is reasonable or effective.

I'm waiting ........

ha hahahahaha.

Un-be-fricken-lievable. Read the paper. It shows that pit bulls and rottweillers are a problem. Your little factoid does not negate this fact. If your argument is we should ban more breeds, have at it! I won't disagree...

As for the ban it... works in Winnipeg. Good enough for me.

I am still waiting for the $10k in escrow.

Enjoy the dog ban ranger... I know I will. May even have a bbq and serve hot dogs.

 

[Ranger68]

Dude, the paper clearly states that "breed bans are not a solution". It also states that OTHER BREEDS MAY BE MORE OF A PROBLEM. Honestly, I think you may have comprehension issues.

The ban doesn't work in Winnipeg. Show me where it does? Where's your evidence? ..... Naturally, you have none.

Would you like to ban dogs?
I believe you would.
Because you're an ass.

Look, once again, if you're going to continue this argument, post some facts from other sources, rather than just talking out your ass.

Oh, and "nyah nyah nyah, enjoy the dog ban" isn't a cogent argument. LOL I believe, however, it may be all you're capable of.

I'll enjoy it when the ban is repealed. Then I'll send you a nice shithead sandwich to bbq.

I'll reply if you have some coherent argument. Otherwise, I'll just assume you have nothing.

Buh-bye.

 

[Ranger68]

Oh, that the irony of the fact that you were mauled as a child by a *German Shepherd*, and are now supporting a ban of pit bulls, hasn't hit you - I think this is demonstrative of your level of fuzzy thinking.

Too bad the dog didn't do a better job.

 

[mtl_guy]

You have no logic. Your arguement is all over the place.

On the one hand you would argue that the media is to blame for the hysteria about pitbulls and that they publish misinformation about pitbull attacks.

But on the other hand you keep repeating that the paper said breed bans are not the solution as if it were a proven scientific fact.

You cant have it both ways.

And if you do take what the paper says as fact then i can show you articles that say the breed ban has worked in Winnipeg and serious attacks have been reduced significantly because pitbulls had been responsible for many of them.

Dude, the paper clearly states that "breed bans are not a solution". It also states that OTHER BREEDS MAY BE MORE OF A PROBLEM. Honestly, I think you may have comprehension issues.

The ban doesn't work in Winnipeg. Show me where it does? Where's your evidence? ..... Naturally, you have none.

Would you like to ban dogs?
I believe you would.
Because you're an ass.

Look, once again, if you're going to continue this argument, post some facts from other sources, rather than just talking out your ass.

Oh, and "nyah nyah nyah, enjoy the dog ban" isn't a cogent argument. LOL I believe, however, it may be all you're capable of.

I'll enjoy it when the ban is repealed. Then I'll send you a nice shithead sandwich to bbq.

I'll reply if you have some coherent argument. Otherwise, I'll just assume you have nothing.

Buh-bye.

 

[Ranger68]

You have no logic. Your arguement is all over the place.

On the one hand you would argue that the media is to blame for the hysteria about pitbulls and that they publish misinformation about pitbull attacks.

But on the other hand you keep repeating that the paper said breed bans are not the solution as if it were a proven scientific fact.

You cant have it both ways.

And if you do take what the paper says as fact then i can show you articles that say the breed ban has worked in Winnipeg and serious attacks have been reduced significantly because pitbulls had been responsible for many of them.

I'm stating that the MANY papers I've read - many of which I've posted links to here - all state that breed bans are not a solution to *dog attacks*.

Clear?

Where are your articles that the breed ban in Winnipeg works?

The media is to blame, as is everyone who can't think rationally about the problem.

It's a witch hunt, plain and simple. It's not the first, and it won't be the last.

 

[strange1]

After reading 11 pages, I'll make a stab at summing up the arguements.

Pro ban: Pit bulls are bread to be agressive and fight.

Anti-ban response: Proper training can reduce this

My comment: This sounds a lot like "Dogs don't kill people, people who mistreat dogs kill people"

Pro ban: a breed ban is a can reduce the attacks

Anti-ban response: It doesn't work anywhere else. people just get other types of dangerous dogs.

My comment: We ban assault weapons because they are potentially dangerous. If we were to ban assault rifles, people would just use hand guns. If we ban hand guns, people will stab each other. Under the anti-ban logic, we shouldn't ban assault rifles either.

Anti-ban: Dogs will be killed

Pro ban response: better than people

Anti-ban: It's a small % of dogs, other things cause more deaths. This is all media hype. It's a political move.

Although it would be difficult (if not impossible) to implement the ban, there should be some effort made to deal with the situation. Education is probably the most effective solution but again, educating liscenced owners will probably fail as well as the police don't have the time to check every dog for a liscence. I do think that dog owners should be accountable for their dogs actions but this is reactionary, similar to the death penalty.

Any breed can have "good" dogs if trained properly but a significant number (I have no statistics) of pit bull owners in the city ARE NOT prepared to be a good owner, ergo the large number of pitts and associated breeds in shelters. Having had to put down my last dog, I wouldn't want to see the pitts in shelters put down but I don't want any genetically dangerous dog that was mistreated or poorly trained before going in to come back out and be owned by the family next door or the drug dealer down the street.

My last question for owners would be "Why do people choose dangerous dogs over other breeds?" If the dog is bought as a guard dog, there is clearly intent to have a dangerous dog. If it's for the image, will the dog be thrown out with the bell bottoms? I don't see any other reason to own a pitt or a rotty.

I don't know what would be a perfect solution but I would rather have the government attempting something instead of just hearing reasons why nothing will work.

 

[mtl_guy]

The poll was far from scientific and proved nothing.

Whats the value of a human life? Or a lifetime of pain for a person who is mauled as a child by a pitbull?

I would value a human life at least slighty higher than that of a dog. So even if one dog that wasnt a pitbull got put down do to misidentification I would deem a ban worth it if it saved at least one human life or kept a child from having to live life with a deformed face.

If you dont agree with any of the other arguements than this is what it boils down too.

Also, I dont think this thread has gotten out of hand. It seems you want to lock it because peoples views differ from yours and they are able to make strong arguements contrary to your views.

Okay guys, keep this up, I will lock the thread to keep it from getting out of hand.

Go take a look at Morgan's poll, she has 7 dogs shown there that a lot of people think are pitbulls but are not. Of those 7 dogs 2 of them are considered dangerous dogs the rest are not. However due to mistaken identity many people will call a dog a pitbull and thats what is recorded.

Now again, a specific breed ban will not be enforceable because one cannot prove that a certain dog is a pitbull. Instead you will have people who really cannot tell the difference between a staffy and a pitbull, putting down staffys because they think they are a pitbull.

All of you guys go on and on about these breeds should be outlawed etc and all you are doing is making those assholes want the dog even more.

Get it through your thick skulls that all large dogs are dangerous and should only be owned by people who understand how to train and control those dogs.

Criminal charges were laid because those dogs were trained to attack and they were sic'ed onto the woman who was killed. It's no different than someone picking up a gun and shooting to kill. All large dogs are weapons in the wrong hands.

So quit tapdancing around the issue. All the top breeders and dog specialists all say that breed bans is not the way to solve the problem. The way to solve the problem is to control the ownership of the dogs and to enforce the existing dangerous dog laws which by the way are rarely enforced. Are any of you aware that large breeds do need to wear a muzzle in public? Yet very few people obey it. Maybe its time the cops started warning people to get muzzles and if they dont comply, fine them.

Instead of knee jerk legislation you need something that is more workable and enforceable. Think about it for gods sake and lay off on the insults.

 

[Ranger68]

How about enforcing strict guidelines on prosecuting owners of ALL dogs who attack?

Sorry, I thought you were innocent until proven guilty in this country .... I guess not. .... Jawhol.

Your analogy is very flawed with regards to weapons. This would be like banning knives, but not banning assault weapons, since there are LOTS of dangerous things that we permit in our society - dogs are well down the list. You *presuppose* that dogs are the dangerous element facing our society.

It is NOT okay to me that tens of thousands of perfectly reasonable dogs will be killed as a result of this ban. It's appalling.

However, I agree with you - it would be difficult, if not impossible to implement the ban, and there should be some effort made to deal with the situation - it's long past time this was done. I'm NOT saying nothing will work. I'm saying A BAN won't work. That legislation should be enacted and enforced.

 

[Ranger68]

The poll was far from scientific and proved nothing.

Whats the value of a human life? Or a lifetime of pain for a person who is mauled as a child by a pitbull?

I would value a human life at least slighty higher than that of a dog. So even if one dog that wasnt a pitbull got put down do to misidentification I would deem a ban worth it if it saved at least one human life or kept a child from having to live life with a deformed face.

If you dont agree with any of the other arguements than this is what it boils down too.

Also, I dont think this thread has gotten out of hand. It seems you want to lock it because peoples views differ from yours and they are able to make strong arguements contrary to your views.

Your kind of logic is the kind of Machiavellian logic that supports cruel animal testing for all kinds of things.

Your ban won't save lives.

You're just being sensationalistic again.

*I* want to save lives - human and otherwise. *You* want to kill pit bulls.

 

[strange1]

Your analogy is very flawed with regards to weapons. This would be like banning knives, but not banning assault weapons, since there are LOTS of dangerous things that we permit in our society - dogs are well down the list. You *presuppose* that dogs are the dangerous element facing our society.

I agree that dog attacks aren't the biggest danger but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something if we can.

You still didn't answer my question about why people buy pitts.

From a general perspective, Any big dog could be a danger but the physical capacity for a pitt to inflict damage is significantly higher than other breeds, just as an assault rifle has a much higher capacity to do damage than a hand gun.

To further the gun comparison, considerin the capability of inflicting damage;
pitt bull = ak 47
rotty = tech 9
sheppard = colt 45
lab = 22
collie = air pistol.


PS sheik, don't close the thread. It would be the equivilent of banning all pitts because a few are bad. Maybe educating users of the board will prevent misbehaving. (not to mention the appearance of bias as you have been active in this discussion)

 

[jwmorrice]

mtl guy.... last year in the US 15 deaths due to dogs. Deaths by car accidents I understand was more than 300 times that number. Murders were way up there as well.

Give me a break, your hysteria is speaking here not rational thought. I'm threatening to close this thread because some people have crossed the line with their insults.

Sheik:

You're not offering much of an argument here. We should only deal with the very top problems? If it's just a few people who die or get seriously injured, we should just ignore the issue? I don't believe that's how things work in any orderly society.

And Sheik, where did this hysteria bit come from? It's like you guys have learned a new word, and a new insult, and can't stop using it.

Lock up the thread? Well, if you must. However, I'm sure some champion of the pitbulls (maybe you! ) will just open another on the same topic and offer yet another helping of the same tiresomely weak arguments.

jwm

 

[Dabbler]

You're talking about a VERY SMALL NUMBER of deaths.

Hey Ranger68 if one of that Very Small Number of deaths is YOUR child or family member that would be acceptable to you? I personally believe that all dog owners should be required to carry
some form of insurance policy related directly to owning a dog and i'm not talking about your home owners policy here. I would also like to mention that by-law enforcement in Toronto is almost non existent. I continue to regularly encounter dogs off leash in public parks such as Riverdale, Withrow and Kew Gardens. I know that Riverdale and Withrow both have off leash areas but some dog owners seem to think this extends to all public spaces and become quite confrontational when approached about this issue. Just an observation, Dabbler

 

[Ranger68]

I agree that dog attacks aren't the biggest danger but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something if we can.

You still didn't answer my question about why people buy pitts.

From a general perspective, Any big dog could be a danger but the physical capacity for a pitt to inflict damage is significantly higher than other breeds, just as an assault rifle has a much higher capacity to do damage than a hand gun.

To further the gun comparison, considerin the capability of inflicting damage;
pitt bull = ak 47
rotty = tech 9
sheppard = colt 45
lab = 22
collie = air pistol.


PS sheik, don't close the thread. It would be the equivilent of banning all pitts because a few are bad. Maybe educating users of the board will prevent misbehaving. (not to mention the appearance of bias as you have been active in this discussion)

Banning pit bulls is like banning AK-47s but not banning M-16s and all the rest of the assault weapons. Your analogy is BADLY flawed. If you're talking about attacks on a single person, pretty much all of those weapons you listed are capable of inflicting the same amount of damage. A .22 can kill you as easily as an AK47. An AK47, however, is capable of killing lots of people at once. This is NOT what we're talking about when we compare dog species.

What are you trying to do? Prevent attacks by pit bulls? Or prevent dog attacks? In Winnipeg where pit bull attacks are now almost non-existent, attacks by Rottweilers are on the rise. Wow. Nice job. Wayda protect the public.

 

[Ranger68]

Sheik:

You're not offering much of an argument here. We should only deal with the very top problems? If it's just a few people who die or get seriously injured, we should just ignore the issue? I don't believe that's how things work in any orderly society.

And Sheik, where did this hysteria bit come from? It's like you guys have learned a new word, and a new insult, and can't stop using it.

Lock up the thread? Well, if you must. However, I'm sure some champion of the pitbulls (maybe you! ) will just open another on the same topic and offer yet another helping of the same tiresomely weak arguments.

jwm

It's not the anti-ban arguments that are entirely weak, it's the pro-ban ones.

Again, what are you trying to do? Protect the public? Or protect the public from pit bulls? Shouldn't you be concerned about the public's welfare? I am. I'm not sure you are.

A pit bull ban isn't going to protect the public. Try again.

 

[Ranger68]

You're talking about a VERY SMALL NUMBER of deaths.

Hey Ranger68 if one of that Very Small Number of deaths is YOUR child or family member that would be acceptable to you? I personally believe that all dog owners should be required to carry
some form of insurance policy related directly to owning a dog and i'm not talking about your home owners policy here. I would also like to mention that by-law enforcement in Toronto is almost non existent. I continue to regularly encounter dogs off leash in public parks such as Riverdale, Withrow and Kew Gardens. I know that Riverdale and Withrow both have off leash areas but some dog owners seem to think this extends to all public spaces and become quite confrontational when approached about this issue. Just an observation, Dabbler

If you think by-law enforcement is non-existent, why do you think a pit bull ban is going to work?

I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable to kill tens of thousands of dogs to ensure that a few dog attacks by pit bulls will now be perpetrated by rottweilers or other breeds. Shouldn't you be dealing with the WHOLE problem? In a workable manner?

Again, those who propose this ban aren't interested in protecting the public - they're interested in revenge for some highly-publicized incidents - they're interested in KILLING PIT BULLS. There is no evidence that a breed ban works. There is STRONG evidence that a breed ban will NOT work.

I propose much stricter legislation regarding licensing, training, and ownership of all dogs, including responsibility for attacks. THIS will help protect the public. A breed ban will not.

 

[jwmorrice]

Sheik:

It's not true that people are only concerned with one breed, i.e. the pitbull. I'd be more than happy to see other fighting breeds banned as well.

More seriously now: You're hot to trot on education? Fine. I see nothing wrong with that. Flesh out the details and supply some supporting info on where it has had good results. C'mon, just do it! Jeez, you've gone on about it long enough. However, I don't see education as taking the place of a breed ban on the "devil dogs". They've just got to go.

Responsible dog owners being treated "like sh*t"? And it happens how often?? Chihuahuas killing babies??? These are the things that occupy your mind? And advocates of breed bans are accused of focusing on an issue of little importance???? Sheik, you're boggling my mind - but not for the first time! Ha-ha.

And how does a breed ban create a media sensation? Seems to me a breed ban will kill off the stories of pit bull attacks.

But hey, I will give you this: wrongheaded though you may be on this issue, you conduct yourself, for the most part, in a gentlemanly fashion. You get points for style but not for substance!

jwm

 

[Ranger68]

"It's not true that people are concerned with one breed." Then, by your own admission, this ban is not the thing to do.
I agree.

Check out ANY of the links I've posted, and read what *the experts* have to say - that education and other forms of legislation are the solution, NOT a breed ban. Go on. I have YET to read anything anywhere that indicates that a breed ban would work - either informed opinion or hard evidence. You want US to post evidence? Where's yours? LOL As far as hard evidence goes, there is HARD EVIDENCE that in Winnipeg, attacks by other breeds, Rottweilers foremost among them, are on the rise. Good job there. I'm sure the mother of one of those children attacked by a Rotty is really glad her child wasn't attacked by a pit bull. Why don't you go tell her why she should be.

The breed ban is in RESPONSE to media sensation. Just admit it's a witch hunt and get on with it.

 

[Dabbler]

If you think by-law enforcement is non-existent, why do you think a pit bull ban is going to work?

I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable to kill tens of thousands of dogs to ensure that a few dog attacks by pit bulls will now be perpetrated by rottweilers or other breeds. Shouldn't you be dealing with the WHOLE problem? In a workable manner?

Hello Ranger68, you still have not answered my question regarding what is an acceptable number of human deaths or maimings in order for people to continue to legally own pit bulls? Tens of thousands of deaths, I believe the human society currently has around 150 pit bulls at their shelter and this is out of around 200 dogs in total, makes you wonder doesn't it? As far as enforcing the ban, at somepoint 10+ plus years down the road there will be no more legal pit bulls in Ontario which then equals no enforcement on this particular breed. I do agree that the whole system of dog ownership needs to be overhauled and yes there are many other dangerous breeds out there that also need to be strictly regulated or banned also. Just my 2 cents, Dabbler