If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pit Bull Ban
This story is taken from my local daily paper.
The one thing about the whole pit bull controversey that stands out to me is this: it seems that either pit bull owners are very responsible, committed or they are ignorant, abusive idiots. I'm pretty ambivalent about the ban, having narrowly averted an attack on my children once so my aversion to the breed is pretty visceral and personal, otoh what I foresee is that another breed will simply be chosen as the default dog for people who derive some kind of weird tough guy status from owning this particular breed. Anyway, here it is: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...a-83be9f63f733 Police lay charges in pit bull attack as Ontario bans breed 17-year-old girl charged with criminal negligence; new law will make province safer, minister says Neco Cockburn and April Lindgren, with files from Ken Gray The Ottawa Citizen Ottawa police laid charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm in a dog attack case yesterday, the same day Ontario's government passed North America's most comprehensive pit bull ban into law. The charges and the new province-wide ban come only five days after three people, including 21/2-year-old Jayden Clairoux, were injured by three pit bull-type dogs in a Pinecrest-area neighbourhood. City officials say the same three dogs attacked two boys in January. The 17-year-old girl charged with three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Further charges are expected to be laid on Friday against an adult male. For an adult, such a charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Police would not provide the relationship between the man and young woman, or whether the man is the dogs' owner, citing the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Six charges were laid last week against the owner, Shridev Cafe, under the provincial Dog Owners Liability Act. The charges carry up to $30,000 in fines. Mr. Cafe was fined $2,310 earlier this winter for another incident in which his dogs attacked a four-year-old boy and his 16-year-old stepbrother as they skated on an ice rink near Woodbridge Crescent. Residents of the Dumaurier Avenue area where the most recent attack occurred say the dogs have been staying in a townhouse there for about a month. Yesterday in a closed session, Ottawa's corporate services committee unanimously requested that city solicitor Jerry Bellomo ask a judge within a week to issue an order to have the animals killed. Susan Jones, the city's bylaw enforcement director, said the city approached the owner to voluntarily have the dogs put down by the Humane Society and he refused. The owner showed no inclination to send the dogs to obedience training, Ms. Jones said, and so she asked committee to take action. The city has the power to order a dog muzzled, contained or leashed, but cannot put the animal down, she said. That's why the city must go to court to get the provincial liability act enforced. Under the province's new law passed yesterday, all pit bulls will now have to be leashed and muzzled in public, and must be spayed or neutered. The new legislation, which is expected to go into effect in late summer or early fall, allows current owners to keep their pit bulls but prohibits them from breeding or acquiring new ones. In addition, fines will increase for individuals who own dangerous dogs that bite, attack or pose a threat, to a maximum of $10,000 from $5,000. The new law provides for jail sentences of up to six months and allows a judge to order restitution. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:05:16 -0500, "Lemony Fresh" wrote: The owner showed no inclination to send the dogs to obedience training ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No surprise there. What a shame. What a damn shame. One bizarre aspect to this story is that the guy can go to the humane society after the ten day observation period and claim the dogs back. I don't understand that, something has to change. I predict a doberman resurgence and yes, it is a damn shame. LF Handsome Jack Morrison *gently remove the detonator to reply by e-mail Mr. Sharansky, ease my doubts: http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Sharansky.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Lemony Fresh" wrote in
: One bizarre aspect to this story is that the guy can go to the humane society after the ten day observation period and claim the dogs back. I don't understand that, something has to change. Nope. Not gonna happen. The city is making an application to the province to have the dogs put down. Chances are very good it will succeed seeing as how it is the second time (!!!!) that these dogs have been involved in something like this. -- Marcel and Moogli |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Marcel Beaudoin wrote:
"Lemony Fresh" wrote in : One bizarre aspect to this story is that the guy can go to the humane society after the ten day observation period and claim the dogs back. I don't understand that, something has to change. Nope. Not gonna happen. The city is making an application to the province to have the dogs put down. Oh! Well that's good news in a sad sort of way. Chances are very good it will succeed seeing as how it is the second time (!!!!) that these dogs have been involved in something like this. Whatta jerk. Twice in something like two months. LF |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
on 2005-03-03 at 08:58 wrote:
I think the real problem is the damage the dogs tend to do, not the frequency of bites. It's the destruction potential that frightens people. I mean if you look at the stats for bite incidents pits are pretty low. Poodles probably bite more than pits (I guess it'd be more) but they don't rip off the bitee's faces. i know someone who literally had half her face ripped off by a Chow. funnily enough, it's Goldens she's wary of, though. their typical "typewriter style" bites cause a *lot* of damage. she said she'd rather get bitten by a Pit Bull any day. Add that to the fact that pitbulls so often end up paired with idjits..and you just can't legislate idiocy out of existence. any dog with teeth is potentially dangerous. unless someone can think up a reasonable way to ensure that idiots cannot have access to dogs, idiots will continue to own dangerous dogs. and, they'll do so long after every community on Urth has banned Pit Bulls out of existence. I realize that responsible dog owners like you are likely the majority but when you have an animal that's very dangerous given the right conditions you have two choices Pit Bulls are not at all unique in that respect. *any* dog has the potential to be "very dangerous." - eliminate those conditions (very, very difficult) or eliminate the animal (fairly simple). simple and utterly ineffectual. So far as the 'media darlings' thing, I am not sure if all dog attacks other than pitbull attacks get ignored, they *are* ignored. that, and they're frequently misattributed to Pit Bulls. I'd have no way of knowing that, but it just seems that when a pit does attack another dog or child or even adult, the damage done is pretty spectacular compared to the damage done by the family poodle. certain people tend to keep dogs in environments that foster human aggression. i think the breed is irrelevant. if it weren't Pit Bulls, it'd be Rottweilers, Dobes, German Shepherds, Boxers, or just about anything. well, except for Poodles. they can be pretty damned nasty when not well bred and socialized, but they're so foofy looking that they aren't likely to ever be the breed of choice for the sorts of clueless asswagons i'm referring to. This is just Jean Q. Public's impression, so I guess all things considered I'm not against the pitbull ban. i dunno what breed/mix your dog is, but eventually, if people do not work to oppose BSL, your dog will be banned, too. -- shelly http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/ (updated dailyish, apparently) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
shelly wrote:
on 2005-03-03 at 08:58 wrote: I think the real problem is the damage the dogs tend to do, not the frequency of bites. It's the destruction potential that frightens people. I mean if you look at the stats for bite incidents pits are pretty low. Poodles probably bite more than pits (I guess it'd be more) but they don't rip off the bitee's faces. i know someone who literally had half her face ripped off by a Chow. funnily enough, it's Goldens she's wary of, though. their typical "typewriter style" bites cause a *lot* of damage. she said she'd rather get bitten by a Pit Bull any day. Is she a masochist? As an aside, my sister's daughter was bitten by their family Golden and IIRC they are at the top of the biting list (but that's because there are so many of them). Add that to the fact that pitbulls so often end up paired with idjits..and you just can't legislate idiocy out of existence. any dog with teeth is potentially dangerous. unless someone can think up a reasonable way to ensure that idiots cannot have access to dogs, idiots will continue to own dangerous dogs. and, they'll do so long after every community on Urth has banned Pit Bulls out of existence. I realize that responsible dog owners like you are likely the majority but when you have an animal that's very dangerous given the right conditions you have two choices Pit Bulls are not at all unique in that respect. *any* dog has the potential to be "very dangerous." Pitbulls have incredibly powerful jaws and a very high prey drive - you can't deny the existence of different temperaments and destructive capabilities among the huge range of breeds within the species. It's the river in Egypt tact and it just doesn't hold water, imo. - eliminate those conditions (very, very difficult) or eliminate the animal (fairly simple). simple and utterly ineffectual. So far as the 'media darlings' thing, I am not sure if all dog attacks other than pitbull attacks get ignored, they *are* ignored. that, and they're frequently misattributed to Pit Bulls. I just don't believe this - savage dog attacks no matter what the breed are the kind of story that the media loves, particularly when it's a child attacked or a toy breed attacked and killed. There is no vast pitbull conspiracy. I'd have no way of knowing that, but it just seems that when a pit does attack another dog or child or even adult, the damage done is pretty spectacular compared to the damage done by the family poodle. certain people tend to keep dogs in environments that foster human aggression. i think the breed is irrelevant. if it weren't Pit Bulls, it'd be Rottweilers, Dobes, German Shepherds, Boxers, or just about anything. well, except for Poodles. they can be pretty damned nasty when not well bred and socialized, but they're so foofy looking that they aren't likely to ever be the breed of choice for the sorts of clueless asswagons i'm referring to. Yes, I agree with you here - I predict dobermans will be the next breed of choice for idiots (and I'll qualify that by saying, obviously, not exclusively) in Ontario. I read recently someone suggesting that only dogs under 20lbs be permitted in urban areas - can you imagine? He got support for the idea from the doghating contingent, I can't see that happening though. This is just Jean Q. Public's impression, so I guess all things considered I'm not against the pitbull ban. i dunno what breed/mix your dog is, but eventually, if people do not work to oppose BSL, your dog will be banned, too. Nope, hyperbole - my dog is a foxy looking eskie, people cross the street to meet her - ironically, I have to tell them to stay away because she's just not into strangers. The breeds you mentioned above - Doberman's, Rottweillers, Shepherds (boxers I don't see as having a bad rep, doesn't everyone love a boxer?) are vulnerable, though. I guess we'll see how this goes. LF |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:39:47 -0500, "Lemony Fresh"
wrote: The breeds you mentioned above - Doberman's, Rottweillers, Shepherds (boxers I don't see as having a bad rep, doesn't everyone love a boxer?) are vulnerable, though. I guess we'll see how this goes. I've seen boxers labeled as pitbulls. I love pitbulls. Don't want one though. Too high energy in a too powerful body for my taste, they make me break out in a rash, and I like dogs with more fur. I fought BSL in my city because it makes no sense (it lost). I chaired the Vicious Dog Hearing Board for the city for 4.5 years. Yes, a lot of the dogs were pitbulls, but there were Akitas, GSD, Rottis, Chows, mutts of all sorts, etc. And very few of the dogs were owned by responsible dog owners - the responsible people weren't letting their dogs roam, they weren't leaving them out in yards, they weren't failing to train, spay/neuter/control breeding, etc. If the BSL had passed, I wouldnt have been allowed to have any pitbulls in my classes. What sense does that make? If banning breeds would stop dog bites, I'd be all for it. But it won't. Banning idiot owners of any breed could though. Like the guy down the street with 2 truly nasty rat terriers. I don't see anyone calling to ban them! My Lucy is a lab/White GSD mix. You can bet she'd become a "lab mix" only if my insurance or city were to ban GSD! After all, since she came from a shelter, how could anyone prove what she is, beyond a shadow of a doubt? She's the sweetest dog in creation, but one who could easily be banned if BSL takes hold, and spreads....... I'll fight it tooth and nail and never think it's a "good thing". -- Janet B www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bestfr...ence/my_photos |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
elegy wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:58:38 -0500, "Lemony Fresh" wrote: elegy wrote: see, i don't get why breed plays into it at all. i think it's a very good thing the owner/s are being held accountable. that's what needs to happen ALL the time, and that's what is going to stop the dog bite problem. these dangerous dog laws need to be applied to ALL dogs that bite/attack/whatever, not just the media "darlings". Hi Elegy (it's me, Jean, wearing a cloaking device!) lemony fresh eh? bwahaha. hah, I know. I have no idea why it occurred to me to use that nick! I think the real problem is the damage the dogs tend to do, not the frequency of bites. It's the destruction potential that frightens people. I mean if you look at the stats for bite incidents pits are pretty low. Poodles probably bite more than pits (I guess it'd be more) but they don't rip off the bitee's faces. Add that to the fact that pitbulls so often end up paired with idjits..and you just can't legislate idiocy out of existence. but any of the large breeds can have a strong bite. and besides, given that most dog bite victims are children, it doesn't take that much strength to do major damage. even a pomeranian is capable of killing a baby. but yes, pit bulls are often paired with lousy owners. but the problem is *still* not the pit bulls, it is the lousy owners. so hold the owners responsible, don't just nuke the dogs. or legislate the dogs out of existence. or punish the responsible owners who just happen to like this breed of dog. I agree that the pit bull ban is unfair to responsible owners. I look at it as a lesser of two evils thing I guess - seeing as how it's so difficult to legislate owner interaction with their animals - and if banning the pit would prevent human tragedies then that outweighs the other side - which I know is more just - of holding the owners responsible. It's just mechanically impossible, imo. I realize that responsible dog owners like you are likely the majority but when you have an animal that's very dangerous given the right conditions you have two choices - eliminate those conditions (very, very difficult) or eliminate the animal (fairly simple). That's not a literal thing - no pitbulls currently owned by Ontarians will be destroyed, it's just that nobody will be allowed to bring new pits into the population. No doggie holocaust. unless you're a pit bull in the shelter. or a pit bull now dumped in the shelter because your owners can't afford the million dollars in insurance. or a pit bull who lives next to hysterical owners who call animal control and accuse you of being menacing. Yep, that's collateral damage I hadn't really considered in my initial response - BUT I'm thinking that if pitbulls are getting dumped into shelters then they are getting dumped there by their irresponsible owners and therefore... Listen, if I lived next door to a pitbull that I sensed was being menacing in any way, I'd probably call animal control too. It's not because of any evil intent on my part - I perceive them as being very dangerous if they aren't properly socialized - and I think I'm right about that. you're not going to get rid of irresponsible owners by outlawing pit bulls. they will either a) ignore the laws and own pit bulls anyway or b) move on to a different breed. the danger is not from the breed. it is from the irresponsibility and poor ownership. breed banning is also very difficult and expensive to enforce. what about dogs who have no pit bull in them whatsoever but have this misfortune of being stocky and muscular (boxer x lab comes to mind). this law puts the onus on the owner to prove that their dog is *not* a pit bull. how is that fair? yes, or pit bull mixes, how much pit bull is too much? However, I think pit bulls have very recognizable features, (very distinctive eyes) that anyone knowledgeable would be able to tell a boxer/lab cross apart from a pitbull. I'd hope so. why not just enforce already existing leash laws for crying out loud?? that's half the problem right there. So far as the 'media darlings' thing, I am not sure if all dog attacks other than pitbull attacks get ignored, I'd have no way of knowing that, but it just seems that when a pit does attack another dog or child or even adult, the damage done is pretty spectacular compared to the damage done by the family poodle. This is just Jean Q. Public's impression, so I guess all things considered I'm not against the pitbull ban. here's a good site (and good book) that talks about the real statistics behind fatal dog attacks http://www.fataldogattacks.com here's the bite stats for just winnipeg, who outlawed pit bulls in 1990 http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/WinnipegBites.htm Thanks for the sites. Someone posted a link to a pit bull flash site recently here that was very sad, had images of some horribly abused pits on it and then images of happy pits snuggling up with children. 10 years ago it was dobermans in this seat. before them, rottweilers i believe. Shepherds had to live down the whole Nazi association, too. Anyway, I love it when you post pics of luce and mushroom, your dogs don't look scary to me in the least. Particularly when they have bunny ears on or they're sadly doing a "stay". LF |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:52:42 -0500, "Lemony Fresh"
wrote: yes, or pit bull mixes, how much pit bull is too much? However, I think pit bulls have very recognizable features, (very distinctive eyes) that anyone knowledgeable would be able to tell a boxer/lab cross apart from a pitbull. I'd hope so. really? try this site: http://members.aol.com/radogz/find.html tell us how well you do. -- Janet B www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bestfr...ence/my_photos |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:55:53 -0500, Janet B
wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:52:42 -0500, "Lemony Fresh" wrote: yes, or pit bull mixes, how much pit bull is too much? However, I think pit bulls have very recognizable features, (very distinctive eyes) that anyone knowledgeable would be able to tell a boxer/lab cross apart from a pitbull. I'd hope so. really? try this site: http://members.aol.com/radogz/find.html tell us how well you do. here's another one: http://www.mnp13.com/FindThePitBull/FindThePitBull.aspx -- Janet B www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bestfr...ence/my_photos |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Latest pit bull attacks across the nation | alexcan99 | Dog health | 0 | January 28th 05 06:25 AM |
Help Fix Yet Another Pit Bull Image Problem! - JOHN | [email protected] | Dog breeds | 1 | January 2nd 05 06:07 AM |
new positive pit bull magazine | EmilyS | Dog breeds | 2 | November 12th 03 07:31 AM |
A Less GAME Pit Bull | Rosesarebetter | Dog breeds | 1 | October 31st 03 02:12 AM |
another eevil pit bull story | John F Richardson | Dog behavior | 0 | October 5th 03 09:59 AM |