A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog behavior
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pit Bull Ban



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 2nd 05, 09:05 PM
Lemony Fresh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 2nd 05, 10:21 PM
Lemony Fresh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 2nd 05, 10:24 PM
Marcel Beaudoin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old March 2nd 05, 11:10 PM
Lemony Fresh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 05, 03:19 PM
shelly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 05, 03:39 PM
Lemony Fresh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 05, 03:48 PM
Janet B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 05, 03:52 PM
Lemony Fresh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 05, 03:55 PM
Janet B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 05, 03:58 PM
Janet B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright ©2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.