Pit Bulls - not personal attacks please

[Ranger68]

Change your question - replace the word "pit bulls" with "dogs of any breed" - then YOU answer it.

And, in order for there to be no more pit bulls down the road is going to require - read carefully now - *enforcement*, which by your own admission, doesn't work.

 

[Dabbler]

Ranger68, It is my understanding that although pit bulls are around 1% of the dog population they account for around 50% of serious attacks, seems to me like a good place to start. Perhaps if people started litigating aginst the city as well as the individual dog owners the enforcement issue would be taken more seriously. However, you continue to evade answering my question regarding acceptable levels of human deaths and maimings vs. the right to own a pit bull. I continue to look forward to your direct response to this question. Gotta go to work now, Dabbler

 

[jwmorrice]

Satisfied Now?

Originally posted by Ranger68 ...The breed ban is in RESPONSE to media sensation. Just admit it's a witch hunt and get on with it.

Yeah, it's a witch hunt and I'm the Gauleiter of Pitdoggiedom!

jwm

 

[big dogie]

Ranger68, It is my understanding that although pit bulls are around 1% of the dog population they account for around 50% of serious attacks, seems to me like a good place to start. Perhaps if people started litigating aginst the city as well as the individual dog owners the enforcement issue would be taken more seriously. However, you continue to evade answering my question regarding acceptable levels of human deaths and maimings vs. the right to own a pit bull. I continue to look forward to your direct response to this question. Gotta go to work now, Dabbler

where did you get your stats?

b d

 

[Ranger68]

DABBLER

The current level is acceptable, insofar as it's acceptable for all other breeds. That is, apparently, the current level of dog attacks is perfectly acceptable, while the level of pit bull attacks is totally unacceptable. Frankly, I don't find the current level of attacks by all breeds acceptable AT ALL. Much stricter legislation should have been enacted a long time ago regarding dog ownership, licensing, and liability. This is the only reasonable way to protect society short of a total ban on dog ownership. I propose to protect society from dog attacks. You propose we protect society from pit bull attacks. Tell me, who's doing more to prevent "human deaths and maimings".

Now, I asked YOU a question, which is the direct corollary of your question to me. If you're going to ban pit bulls, but do NOTHING about the rest of the dogs, you tell me - what is an acceptable number of human deaths or maimings in order for people to continue to legally own dogs?

And, if it's "a good place to start", do you really think there are going to be more bans? Why aren't ALL the "dangerous breeds" being banned NOW? The government is in the process of introducing legislation to deal with breeds as we speak - why aren't they dealing with *the whole problem*. Answer, please.
I look forward to it.

You think about it.

 

[Ranger68]

where did you get your stats?

b d

He made them up.
Not one of these guys has posted a link ANYWHERE to support their argument.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

 

[big dogie]

DABBLER


And, if it's "a good place to start", do you really think there are going to be more bans? Why aren't ALL the "dangerous breeds" being banned NOW? The government is in the process of introducing legislation to deal with breeds as we speak - why aren't they dealing with *the whole problem*. Answer, please.
I look forward to it.

You think about it.

well it would show how extrem the actions they are taking really are. To ban all those breeds would result in too much oposition and that would curtail their agenda.

b d

 

[Ranger68]

There's no agenda - OTHER THAN TO BAN PIT BULLS.
This is going to do nothing to stop the problem, but merely waste my money and make people think the problem has gone away. "A false sense of accomplishment," to quote from one of the studies I linked.

 

[JimJim]

He made them up.
Not one of these guys has posted a link ANYWHERE to support their argument.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

JIM COYLE

Finally, there is common sense — as contained in one of the statistics Bryant cited yesterday.

Pit bulls apparently account for a little over one per cent of the dog population, he said, but are involved in half the serious incidents involving dogs.

"Those statistics make a devastating case," he said. "These are not pets."

Amen.

And good riddance.

Additional articles by Jim Coyle

 

[Ranger68]

Link, please.

Otherwise, good riddance to spurious statistics.

 

[Dabbler]

He made them up.
Not one of these guys has posted a link ANYWHERE to support their argument.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

Ranger68, hope your head has not exploded yet! The statistic I quoted was used by Micheal Bryant, Ontario's Attorney General, when announcing the pit bull ban. Jim Coyle of the Toronto Star also used the same statistic in his article dealing with this issue, which JImJIm looks like he has provided an excerpt from. I would also appreciate you not attacking my integrity, 'He made them up' a serious allegation, without allowing me a chance to respond first, lets try and keep the discourse civil. You answered my original question and I will attempt to find a direct link to verify the statistic quoted. I also respect your right to articulate your opinion, although do not agree with your rational,'the current level is acceptable'. Cheers for now, Dabbler

 

[strange1]

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.

Since a Rott hass less jaw strength, their attack does less damage that a pitt, the child is slightly better off (though definately not happy).

If Winnipeg's ban has effectively gotten pit bulls out of the city, they have already set precident for expending the ban to other fighting dogs. They could and should continue to ban any breeds that have a much higher than normal GENETICALY SELECTED agressiveness and physical ability.

IMHO, the only place that any attack dog should be allowed is with a government liscenced and regulated security company.

I already asked what non-violent reasons there were for someone to choose a Pitt bull, Rottweiler, or any other type of fighting dog over any other breed. Since no answer has been given, I can only assume that the only reason is image. Owning a dangerous dog for the sake of fashion doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Simple. Guard Dogs should not be pets that can end up in some numbskull's back yard. Ban them all.

 

[Ranger68]

Ranger68, hope your head has not exploded yet! The statistic I quoted was used by Micheal Bryant, Ontario's Attorney General, when announcing the pit bull ban. Jim Coyle of the Toronto Star also used the same statistic in his article dealing with this issue, which JImJIm looks like he has provided an excerpt from. I would also appreciate you not attacking my integrity, 'He made them up' a serious allegation, without allowing me a chance to respond first, lets try and keep the discourse civil. You answered my original question and I will attempt to find a direct link to verify the statistic quoted. I also respect your right to articulate your opinion, although do not agree with your rational,'the current level is acceptable'. Cheers for now, Dabbler

I see you haven't answered my question yet.

I'll wait until you do.

Oh, and great source, by the way - a quote from the guy who's responsible for the ban. LOL I asked for links to sites - independent sites with studies from experts - like those I linked.

I'm still waiting for both corroborative evidence of your statistics and your position, and an answer to my simple question. It seems you have neither the decency to answer, nor any answer at all, since you've now posted TWICE since my question.

Finally, if you read my response again - carefully this time - you'll see that *I* don't find the current level acceptable at all, and only those who oppose the pit bull ban are clearly thinking in the public's best interests. It's those who support the ban who obviously find the current frequency of dog attacks acceptable.

If you'd like to continue, answer my question. Reread the post, if you have to.

 

[Ranger68]

Since a Rott hass less jaw strength, their attack does less damage that a pitt, the child is slightly better off (though definately not happy).

If Winnipeg's ban has effectively gotten pit bulls out of the city, they have already set precident for expending the ban to other fighting dogs. They could and should continue to ban any breeds that have a much higher than normal GENETICALY SELECTED agressiveness and physical ability.

IMHO, the only place that any attack dog should be allowed is with a government liscenced and regulated security company.

I already asked what non-violent reasons there were for someone to choose a Pitt bull, Rottweiler, or any other type of fighting dog over any other breed. Since no answer has been given, I can only assume that the only reason is image. Owning a dangerous dog for the sake of fashion doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Simple. Guard Dogs should not be pets that can end up in some numbskull's back yard. Ban them all.

HA! That's funny about how a child savaged by a rotty would be better off than having been savaged by a pit bull. Again, why don't you call the mothers of those children in Winnipeg who've now been viciously assaulted by Rottweilers and tell them why they should be glad.

People are free to choose the dogs they like. Lots of people - make that, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE who choose pit bulls do so because they like them, they like their temperament. Why does anyone choose any dog?
Sorry - I thought the answer was so obvious it didn't need answering.
Evidently, it did.

There is no plan afoot in Winnipeg to ban other breeds. Again, apparently people are okay with the current frequency of dog attacks - which, by the way, is hardly changed at all from the days before the ban. Once the witch hunt was over, it was back to normal, everyday life. What makes you think that they're about to ban other "dangerous" "fighting" breeds?
You're dreaming.

You throw words like "dangerous", "fighting", "guard", and "attack" around without any real understanding of what you mean. Or, at least, totally false perceptions of dog breeds in general. Which is what happens during a witch hunt.

 

[jwmorrice]

Originally posted by Ranger68 HA! That's funny about how a child savaged by a rotty would be better off than having been savaged by a pit bull. Again, why don't you call the mothers of those children in Winnipeg who've now been viciously assaulted by Rottweilers and tell them why they should be glad.
...

Hey, you're stealing my rhetorical devices! Of course, when I used this approach, you thought it terrible. C'mon, get your own writers.

Anyway, here's an article from the Toronto Star by the Ontario Attorney-Generral. In it, he states that dog attacks in general have gone down in Winnipeg since the breed ban was put in place there. I find that interesting.

jwm

Oct. 21, 2004. 01:00 AM
The case for banning pit bulls

MICHAEL BRYANT

Pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals, more bull than pet, and therefore should not be haunting the streets, fields and family rooms of Ontario. A remarkable, silent majority is finally being heard on this issue.

But the debate over banning pit bulls is not exclusive to Ontario: Bans are in place in places like Kitchener-Waterloo, Windsor, Winnipeg, and abroad in Britain and New Zealand, and are being considered in London, Brantford, and Toronto. Why ban these beasts?

There are statistics to back up the thousands of e-mails I have received of unreported pit bull attacks, but nothing makes the case for banning pit bulls better than the experiences of Winnipeg and Kitchener.

Winnipeg was experiencing more than 30 serious, reported pit bull attacks a year. Today? Zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks annually, and in a few short years since the ban was introduced, they now have about one a year.

That means that people in those cities who otherwise would have continued to be attacked by pit bulls were, instead, spared serious injury.

Ten years ago, when I saw the 5-year-old Toronto girl whose face was savagely mauled by a pit bull, many wondered how many more children would be harmed by these incomparably vicious dogs. Ten years from now, maybe there will be no more, if this pit bull ban passes in Queen's Park.

Even more interestingly, attacks in Winnipeg by all breeds of dogs — once numbering 30 to 40 per year — have decreased overall. A decade after their pit bull ban was instituted, dog attacks number about one per year, refuting the claim that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by the banned pit bulls.

The truth is, while other dogs can be dangerous, no other dog is as dangerous as a pit bull.

No other dog can match the severity of the attack, and the unpredictability of the attack. Even a U.S. study from 2000, sometimes cited as evidence by opponents of the pit bull ban, finds that one-third of dog-bite related fatalities — yes, fatalities — were caused by pit bulls.

While it may be difficult to say definitively how many pit bulls there are in North America, it is certain that one-third of dogs are not pit bulls, a breed that is killing and attacking at an alarming rate.

We don't permit muzzled wolves on leashes in public parks. Why? Because they're just too dangerous. So it is for pit bulls.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...181&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

jwm

 

[red]

well then lets get rid of all the bad breeds. if there are dogs bread to fight or attack- they should not be pets and should not be in a crowded city

 

[Ranger68]

Hey, you're stealing my rhetorical devices! Of course, when I used this approach, you thought it terrible. C'mon, get your own writers.

Anyway, here's an article from the Toronto Star by the Ontario Attorney-Generral. In it, he states that dog attacks in general have gone down in Winnipeg since the breed ban was put in place there. I find that interesting.

jwm

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/09/04/615139.html

The numbers I have seen indicate, very predictably, that although attacks by "pit bulls" have dropped to nearly zero (hurray for us), attacks by other breeds have jumped dramatically. No surprise there.

If the attorney-general was really interested in public safety, and not just pandering to the cries of the mob, he'd enact stricter legislation on all dogs, and forget breed-specific legislation - it just doesn't work.

 

[Ranger68]

well then lets get rid of all the bad breeds. if there are dogs bread to fight or attack- they should not be pets and should not be in a crowded city

Okay, let's get rid of all breeds that have ever killed or mauled people.

That's most dogs.

While we're at it, let's ban alcohol, since about a MILLION times more problems stem from alcohol use and abuse than dogs. While we're at that, let's ban everything we don't like and everything that scares us.

Forget the fact that none of these bans will work ........

 

[Ranger68]

Of course, there are no answers from those who were posed specific questions.
The silence is deafening.

There are two problems with banning pit bulls, people:
first, it's extraordinarily difficult to do - there are no reliable ways to enact and enforce the ban;
second, it's not going to solve the problem.

The only thing the ban does is pander to the mob.

Enact hard legislation regarding education, licensing, and liability. Period. Read some of the studies I've posted. There are NO experts who propose a breed ban - from public safety experts, to the medical community, to canine behaviour experts. They ALL SAY it's not a good solution, and that the better one is the one I propose.

 

[jwmorrice]

Finally found a place for abandoned pitbulls! http://wolf.ok.ac.kr/~annyg/english/image/pic_5.gif

jwm