Pit Bulls - not personal attacks please

[strange1]

Sorry, I'm working a post behind here.

Laws are made to PREVENT harm to society. Drinking and driving is a choice by those who use alcohol improperly, knowing they are breaking the law and knowing what will happen when they get caught. A drunk driver being punished directly addresses the problem as the driver (when sober) has to face the consequences of their actions. The consequences of drinking and driving are enough to prevent most DUI's so a ban on alcohol is not needed.

A dog does not have the legal capacity to choose to be violent. It just is the way it is. A dog has no idea why it is being put in a cage and will therefore not be able to be rehailitated. How can threatening to lock up or put down offending dogs prevent another dog from attacking?

Also, I still would like someone to address the fact that these dogs were selectively bred to do the exact things that are causing the problems. How else do you suggest we make these dogs go against their own breeding?

 

[Dabbler]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ranger68, As I stated before the whole system of dog ownership needs to be changed. Zero human deaths or maimings of innocent people would be an acceptable number in my opinion, unfortunately not realistic at present. In a previous post I offered the suggestion of dog owners having to have specific insurance policies to own a dog. I also discussed the lack of enforcement which which offers no deterrent to the irresponsible owners of violent dogs, a very problematic issue. Perhaps another appraoch to encourage responsible dog ownership would be required instruction and training similar to what is now reqired to get an FAC. Unfortunately for pit bulls and their owners they have become the poster child for savage dog attacks and are the first casulatity in what is hopefully a long overdue change to the current system. I am also still trying to provide verification for the statistic I used and have made a formal request to the AG's office as well as contacting Jim Coyle of the Toronto Star for their source material. Hope this answers your question, Dabbler

 

[Ranger68]

As for definitions: (From thefreedictionary.com)

guard dog - a dog trained to guard property (in other words, a dog that keeps a property safe by creating a fear of injury to anyone that enters)

attack dog - a watchdog trained to attack on command

(from USlegalforms.com)
Dog fighting is an illegal practice in which two dogs, usually of a Pit Bull breed, are put into an enclosed area for the purpose of attacking and quite frequently, killing each other. (why do you think pitts are used? Is it their temperment?)

(from dictionary.com)
dan·ger·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dnjr-s)
adj.

1. Involving or filled with danger; perilous.
2. Being able or likely to do harm.


(being able to do harm - sounds pretty apt to me)

In this case, *every* dog is "dangerous", and, since very few pit bulls are *trained* to attack or guard, very few of them are "attack dogs" or "guard dogs".

Thanks.

 

[Ranger68]

Hey, you're argueing a breed ban won't work while stating that winnipeg has had only 4 attacks in 15 months. Your only basis for the fact that the ban wont work is the OPINION that people will find other dogs that attack.

Nope. Reread (or, read) some of those studies I linked. You also presuppose that this rate is significantly lower than the dog attack rate *before* the ban took effect in Winnipeg. Do you have any numbers to back that up? Other than hearsay from the attorney-general responsible for our ban?

If the ban in winnipeg is such a failure, why has it not been repealed in the 14 years since the ban took effect. Obviously, the majority of Winnipegites think it is working well enough.

*sigh* Okay, pay attention now. It was enacted to *appease the public* who'd been subject to a *media sensationalization* of the danger of pit bulls. It was done for political reasons, not reasons of public safety.

I would like to see reliable evidence that there are as many or more dog attacks now than before 1990. (beyond sun media reports)

What would you consider "reliable"? Rather, I should say, I would expect those who enacted the ban to be able to point to hard numbers and say "See". These numbers are not forthcoming though, are they?

 

[Ranger68]

No but we already have legal consequences to deal with these.

A 16 year old is already legally banned from driving with any alcohol since they will only have a G1. I understand the penalties are severe. Murderers can face life in prison for gun violence, especialy if it is used in the commision of a crime. There are no such penalties for dog owners.

A person, even at 16, has the mental ability that allows decision making that a dog does not and will never have. A dog has no conception of laws or consequences, especialy if it's what their bred for. A teenager or any person may not base their decisions on the law but they know it exists.

Then why don't we have legal consequences to dog attacks? Or stricter ones? And why, in these cases, would they not be sufficient?

And, of course, it's the OWNER of the dog who has the decision making capability. He should be legally responsible for his dog. It's baffling that this is not the case.

 

[Ranger68]

On the topic of laws, we have laws saying that it's illegal to drink and drive. I am sure that the vast majority of the people who (stupidly) drink and drive (even though it may only be 2 drinks to .80) make it home without killing anyone but it is potentially dangerous to society so we ban it.

We ban firing guns in public even though the majority of gun owners would be able to safely fire their gun in the backyard.

We ban the sale of narcotics even though the vast majority of users enjoy themselves without killing anyone.

The majority of the owners of the dogs we're talking about are responsible but if the elected government sees their breeding as a potential threat to public safety, it makes sense to ban them. Of couse some might choose to ignore the ban and they'll end up in the same place as the drug dealers, drunk drivers, and gunmen.

Of course, there are problems with the idea of a ban, just as there are other loopholes in the legal system. It's easy to get around ANY law. Just make sure you don't get caught.

PS. This is a fun way to relax on my first true night off in a while.

No, no, no - the corrolary to a breed ban would be an *alcohol* ban, not a ban on drunk driving.
To say that drunk driving is against the law is to say that dog attacks are against the law. They are. Perhaps (and I agree with this) they should be dealt with more severely.

That is, both dog attacks and drunk driving are against the law. But nobody's saying we need to ban alcohol because of it.

 

[Ranger68]

Ranger68, As I stated before the whole system of dog ownership needs to be changed. Zero human deaths or maimings of innocent people would be an acceptable number in my opinion, unfortunately not realistic at present. In a previous post I offered the suggestion of dog owners having to have specific insurance policies to own a dog. I also discussed the lack of enforcement which which offers no deterrent to the irresponsible owners of violent dogs, a very problematic issue. Perhaps another appraoch to encourage responsible dog ownership would be required instruction and training similar to what is now reqired to get an FAC. Unfortunately for pit bulls and their owners they have become the poster child for savage dog attacks and are the first casulatity in what is hopefully a long overdue change to the current system. I am also still trying to provide verification for the statistic I used and have made a formal request to the AG's office as well as contacting Jim Coyle of the Toronto Star for their source material. Hope this answers your question, Dabbler

If NO human deaths or maimings are acceptable, then you should be in favour of banning all dogs.

Period.

As I've said many times, *I* am in favour of increased education, legislation, and liability in terms of *all* dogs, not just one breed. THIS would go further to stop ALL dog attacks, not just a subset. Once again, I've read NO study indicating that a breed ban can be effective or manageable.

 

[Dabbler]

Yes, as I've said, if LOTS of things are FAR MORE of a problem, I have issues spending time and money on "solving" these issues.

Talk about wasting money, recently the Humane Society was issued a court order to put down a pit bull, Bandit I think, who had attacked a little girl causing over 200 stiches. The dog's owner wanted the animal destroyed but the Humane society refused, instead taking the city of Toronto to court. The Humane Society lost and were ordered to comply with the orginal court order, they are now considering an appeal. Wonder what this excerise in futility cost the taxpayers?

 

[Dabbler]

Hey Sheik, point well taken. Had a German Sheppard when I lived in the Beach, but then moved to a condo downtown. Never considered giving it the Humane Society, instead left in with friends who live on a farm outside of Kingston, that was one happy dog. Don't get me started on the Humane Society, do you remember that zealot Liz White who used to be in charge? See now you got me started, Dabbler

 

[Ranger68]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...53_93244651/?hub=TopStories&subhub=PrintStory

How about CTV?

"However, Winnipeg enacted a similar ban and found that attacks by Rottweilers jumped after the pit bull ban came in.

Saskatchewan has been the only province to pass "dangerous-dog" legislation with penalties that include fines of up to $10,000 or six months in jail or both.

"It's a slippery slope," said Gary Gibson, a canine behavioural expert. "Once you ban one breed, then the next breed becomes the issue, then another becomes the issue."

White doesn't think the bans in Kitchener and other place will last long. She says the problem is that "pit bull" is not a breed, but an umbrella term for American Pit Bull terriers, American Staffordshires, Staffordshire Bull terriers, or any mix involving those breeds.

"In the U.S., where they've had a much longer history of banning specific breeds of animals, there have been court challenges and the legislation has fallen because they can't actually define what a pit bull is. There are just so many variations."

The Canada Safety Council says Canada has no national data on dog-related deaths and injuries, or which breeds cause the most harm."

I think the consensus is that legislation, rather than breed bans, is the answer - unless you ask the politicians pandering to the mobs.

 

[Ranger68]

Yes, as I've said, if LOTS of things are FAR MORE of a problem, I have issues spending time and money on "solving" these issues.

Talk about wasting money, recently the Humane Society was issued a court order to put down a pit bull, Bandit I think, who had attacked a little girl causing over 200 stiches. The dog's owner wanted the animal destroyed but the Humane society refused, instead taking the city of Toronto to court. The Humane Society lost and were ordered to comply with the orginal court order, they are now considering an appeal. Wonder what this excerise in futility cost the taxpayers?

The humane society of toronto is *privately* run, not a public institution.

I wonder what this totally futile breed ban is going to cost the taxpayers?

 

[Dabbler]

Ranger68, I was actually refering to the costs incurred by the city of Toronto in litigating this matter. I also wonder if the Humane Society receives any type of money from the city at all, some type of grant perhaps? Your question about the cost to taxpayers is a good one, have not seen any figures announced yet. Dabbler

 

[Ranger68]

It's the Humane Society's mandate to be, well, humane, and to act in situations where it deems appropriate. I think they benefit the city more than cost it, in the long and short run.
Anyway ......
As I understand it, they receive no government support.

My whole point is that this exercise is costly and pointless - it won't significantly cut the number of dog attacks - it's a false sense of accomplishment. In fact, it's worse, since it will lead to the deaths of many innocent animals.
While public sentiment is high, the government should have the balls to follow the proper course of action - which is NOT breed specific legislation, but that been laid out by experts in the field - education, licensing, liability, responsibility.

 

[Drunken Master]

Funny report on Global tonight - about how pit bull owners are being verbally attacked by passersby on the street as they walk their dogs. One guy was even challenged to a fight. Another was spit on.

So let me get this straight - people are so afraid of these vicious dogs they approach their owners and threaten violence - while the dogs are there!!???

Screw banning pit bulls - ban people.

 

[torex]

in defence of an animal abused

friend of mine sent this to me. thought I would share it
http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/

 

[jwmorrice]

Re: in defence of an animal abused

friend of mine sent this to me. thought I would share it
http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/

Oh fark! You're gonna make Sheik cry!

jwm