Dog banning

[Diamond Sun]

Okay, so it's a topic I've seen many places around the internet, but it hasn't made it's way over here, so I'll bring it myself.

How do we all feel about Ontario banning pit bulls? Is it a step in the right direction, or in the wrong?

I'm having a very interesting email conversation with a good friend on this topic, we finally found something to disagree on...

So, how do you all feel? Maybe you can help to change my mind.

 

[bevvyd]

Personally I laughed when I read that Ontario will thru irresponsible owners in jail. Do they have enough room for these irresponsible owners? If not who are they not going to put in jail?

Fine them yes big time, but for ALL dog owners whose dogs bite and/or attack, not just pit bulls.

I'm not sure about banning the breed, won't another breed just take it's place?

 

[Andem]

bevvyd, the sad this is: Ontario really doesn't have enough room or funding for putting irresponable dog owners into jail.. I doubt it will actually come to that, but it's a very serious matter here with dogs attacking small children and other small dogs.

I have to agree with the pitbull ban, while they may seem cute and cuddly, they are very known for turning and attacking even their owners. They are a very inbred breed which is famous for their vicious side. They are just too risky around children.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Banning breeds is stupid. Ban pit bulls and the idiots will get rottis, rottis and they'll get Akitas, Akitas and they'll get shepherds.

There is certain mindset of people out there that want mean dogs. Right now the pitbull is their breed of choice. That has a lot of people unfairly judging the pitbull. Before that it was Dobermans though and before that German Shepherds...nobody talked about banning those breeds.

 

[bevvyd]

Andem I completely agree with you about how vicious pitties can be. I would never allow them near children personally. I get scared when I see one running loose, even if the owner is nearby. Nearby isn't good enough for me.

Rev, I too share the same feeling about these people replacing pit bulls with rotties and other known attack dogs.

But still something has to be done. Do we muzzle all dogs? Should dog owners be required to carry insurance or pay extra on their home insurance? But then what about the people that rent? Should they be restricted to certain areas, much like livestock not being allowed to live in the city regardless of how much property you own. I don't have the answer but I do think something needs to be done before more people get attacked and more dogs get put down.

 

[Diamond Sun]

I agree with Rev that banning isn't the answer. It's a solution that makes the politicians look like they're doing something, and appeases the general public.

Maybe we need stricter bylaws to fine owners that have agressive dogs. Or have laws in place regarding "dangerous breeds" in public requiring muzzles.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I'd say that a one-time license for dog owners...something like the Humane Society quiz, but tougher. Combine that with strict spay and neuter laws because unfixed dogs are far more prone to attacking.

We've had a pit bull ban in Winnipeg for years. There are still attacks and there are still pit bulls. It's just undergound now.

 

[Diamond Sun]

I read an article saying that since the ban on pitbulls in winnipeg, that pitbull attacks had dropped from 25 down to 2. I am curious though...how many TOTAL attacks were there then as compared to now. That might be more telling than any other statistic.

I like the licence idea. I suggested something similar to my friend.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

The pitbull has a bad record, media sensationalizing aside. It is a breed that was specifically bred to fight and kill. Yes, there are other potentially dangerous breeds, but the most dangerous, in my view, are the ones bred to kill. Guard dogs are not in the same category, they are bred to guard, to attack, but not to kill.

The argument that 'the pitbull owner/breeder is the problem, not the pitbull', is, to me, akin to the argument south of the border that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

To resolve the problem of gun deaths, you have to get rid of the guns, regardless of whether the people who own guns are ultimately responsible for the gun deaths, and whether they will seek out illegal guns or not, and whether they will find other weapons or not. The first logical step remains to ban the guns themselves.

This holds true with the pitbull as well; to resolve the problem of pitbull attacks, you have to ban the breed, regardless of what the pitbull owners do after the fact, regardless of their culpability in the first place, and regardless of whether there are other problem breeds. We must take the logical first step.

Perhaps the gist of the matter is simply: should we, as a civilized and safe society, allow the presence of a breed of dog specifically bred to kill?

 

[Cosmo]

I've been following this news topic with some interest, Diamond Sun. Glad you brought it up since I am curious about what my cohorts here think.

From my other posts, you may know I am somewhat paranoid about government interference in private lives of citizens. To me, this is just another example of the machine in action.

As the Rev correctly pointed out, those wanting pit bulls for the wrong reasons will simply turn to other breeds. The problem is irresponsible owners, not any specific breed of dog.

Bryant and McGuinty are dangerous politicians. (Redundant?) They sought answers that supported their own agenda and refused to consult with appropriate organizations (such as Ont. Vet Medical Assoc.) or other experts. They did not allow open public hearings. The law is high-handed, ill researched and illogical. After pit bulls, what breed will be next?

I checked http://www.safety-council.org/news/sc/1999/dogbites.htm and found the following information:

According to the study, the most common biters are
• german shepherds
• cocker spaniels
• rottweilers
• golden retrievers
The site does say pit bulls are likely to bite, but is it the nature of the dog or is it the nature of those who acquire these dogs? The dog owners who should never snap a leash on any dog will simply go underground or turn to another breed. “Punish the deed, not the breed.”

Erie-Lincoln MPP Tim Hudak says, "We have a major problem with biker gangs, firearm and drug smuggling, and a youth justice system that is a slap on the wrist. For the Liberals to put banning certain breeds of dogs at the top of the public safety list, shows they are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to effectively fighting crime."

Dr. Tim Zaharchuk, President of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association also questioned the validity of the proposed ban on pit bulls. The Toronto Star quoted him as saying "As a breed, pit bulls are not any worse than any other dog. But you can’t legislate against ignorance or stupidity."

Amen.

Pit bulls aren't even an actual breed. They are defined by physical characteristics or because they are Staffordshire or Boston terriers.

The Toronto Star also quoted Dr. Bonnie Beaver (President of the American Veterinary Medical Association) as saying, "If you don’t have a breed, how do you ban it? You’d have to ban all dogs that stand up to three and a half feet at the shoulders, weigh 50 to 75 pounds, have roundish heads and heavy muscle development. That would include boxers, Dobermans, Labradors and on and on."

In my opinion, the Liberals have found an issue that will cause knee-jerk reactions, stir up controversy and draw the attention of the Canadian public away from the real issues of ineffectual leadership.

I have a Jack Russell Terror. My sister has a pit bull. Of the two dogs, mine is far more likely to bite but the Liberals would look even more foolish if they put cute little JR’s on the chopping block. I don’t think this issue really has anything to do with dog bites.

 

[bevvyd]

So I heard on the news this morning there was another pit bull attack in Toronto. Seems a little chichuawa (I can't spell it but you know the little taco bell dog I mean) was grabbed by a pit bull and killed. I haven't heard any more about the story yet.

But I like the licensing idea that a few posters have brought up. Good idea, maybe we should forward to people in power so they can consider it?

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

“Punish the deed, not the breed.”

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

I am against the idea of citizens packing loaded weapons, and I am against citizens keeping vicious dogs to have as, basically, loaded weapons.

It is easy to dismiss the idea of banning a breed based on the concern that some people will simply move on to another breed, but isn't that the same sort of argument that Americans against gun control use as their reason why gun control won't work?

the Liberals would look even more foolish if they put cute little JR’s on the chopping block. I don’t think this issue really has anything to do with dog bites.

I think it has less to do with dog bites in general and more to do with the potential for serious harm from the dog bites. I suspect most people would far better survive an attack by a Jack Russell than an attack by a Pitbull. I think, too, that when a Jack Russell takes a nip he is being, well, snippy about it. When a Pitbull takes a nip, he means bloody business.

 

[Diamond Sun]

Pit bulls aren't even an actual breed. They are defined by physical characteristics or because they are Staffordshire or Boston terriers.

Absolutely agree here Cosmo. I found a website that has a page full of pictures of 25 dogs. It says "Find the American pitbull terrier". It took me 16 tries to find it. People may be identifying the dogs as pitbulls when in fact they are another breed entirely, like a mastiff, or a Cane Corso (yes, I've never heard of it either, but it was the first one I picked as the pitbull).

This is why I ask Rev about the stats on TOTAL dog bites in Winnipeg since the ban went into effect.

Also, Haggis, I completely understand your gun analogy (and it is a good one!), but maybe it would be better, and less government intrusive, to have people register their dogs, and have to have temperment tests done on them. Naturally this leads to the argument, that those people with the dangerous dogs will be the ones that don't register them. Well, like I've been told before, if there is legislation, pit bulls are easy to spot, and people would be allowed to call in about a pitbull in their neighbourhood, and then the pitbull owner would have to produce proof of registration and temperment testing.

I'm just throwing out options to the out and out banning of the dog. Which, as cosmo pointed out, isn't even in the top four most common biters. (I had also read that Cosmo, but couldn't find it again)

Can you find the pitbull..
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

 

[bevvyd]

Diamond Sun, years ago we owned an English Bull Terrier, she was abolsutely a wonderful dog. One day I took her to the beach with me, we lived across the street from a lake, she was leashed and some lady started screaming at me for bringing a pit bull to the beach. I told her that if she was so afraid of pit bulls she better learn what one looks like. Luckily there was a vet at the beach enjoying some R & R and he came to my defense and confirmed that this was NOT a pit bull but a beautiful brindle English Bull Terrier.

Oh and I'm not so sure about the JR's either. We had one stay with us and the stupid thing ripped the steel skin off the door, in less than 5 minutes I might add. They are a one person dog, but I love them anyways.

 

[Cosmo]

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

To be honest, Haggis, this kind of rhetoric annoys me. It's a bumper sticker, not a reasonable argument. Guns do not kill people. They do not jump out of the case and start firing away on their own, except in low budget horror movies. In real life, it's people behind them. More people are killed by automobiles than guns every day, yet we don't run around banning cars. If one wanted to start citing statistics, I think guns would come in very low in the list of things that kill people.

I am against the idea of citizens packing loaded weapons, and I am against citizens keeping vicious dogs to have as, basically, loaded weapons.

It is easy to dismiss the idea of banning a breed based on the concern that some people will simply move on to another breed, but isn't that the same sort of argument that Americans against gun control use as their reason why gun control won't work?

Using the gun control analogy is inappropriate. We are talking about living, breathing creatures here, not "loaded weapons". It's apples and oranges. Dogs are not guns. Throwing the two together only confuses both issues. While both cause the same knee-jerk reaction, the two areas under discussion are entirely separate matters.

I think it has less to do with dog bites in general and more to do with the potential for serious harm from the dog bites. I suspect most people would far better survive an attack by a Jack Russell than an attack by a Pitbull. I think, too, that when a Jack Russell takes a nip he is being, well, snippy about it. When a Pitbull takes a nip, he means bloody business.

Don't kid yourself, Haggis ... My JR means business when she bites. She is spoiled and indulged and thinks, in her little doggy mind, that she IS a pit bull. She means business. I agree that I would be more likely to survive an attack from my JR than from a pit bull, but by the same token, I would be more likely to ensure a pit bull was better trained than my JR. If I owned any large breed I would be obligated to ensure the animal was not dangerous. Actually, I am equally obligated to ensure my JR does not bite anyone. As a dog owner, I have accepted that responsibility. The argument is with the dog owners, not the dogs.

I would, personally, never own a pit bull. I do not believe they are the best choice for a family pet. While they aren't any more likely to bite than any other dog (in my experience), they can cause significant damage if they do bite. It's just easier to own a collie or a JR or a greyhound. But I do not feel it is right to impose my choices on other people. I'm big on personal freedom.

At any rate, I don't believe this has anything to do with dogs. It's politics, pure and simple. The responses in this forum only illustrate my point -- get the people arguing about a side issue and they forget what the damn Liberals are actually doing to our country. Distraction is a very effective form of control. And here I sit, coffee in hand, eating the cheese out of this particular mouse trap.

While I may not agree with you, Haggis, I defend your right to your opinion. I'm not trying to change your views -- "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" -- I am simply expressing mine. Ain't freedom of speech grand?

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

To be honest, Haggis, this kind of rhetoric annoys me. It's a bumper sticker, not a reasonable argument.

Yes, it is very much the same kind of annoying rhetoric as “Punish the deed, not the breed.” which is also just a bumper sticker sentiment, not a reasonable argument... but one you used.

I agree that I would be more likely to survive an attack from my JR than from a pit bull

Exactly.

The argument is with the dog owners, not the dogs.

Our government already prohibits keeping potentially dangerous animals as pets, ie wild cats. There are many who say these cats are wonderful pets. Would you say the government is exerting too much control by prohibiting ownership of these and other dangerous animals? Should people be able to own any sort of animal they want as a pet as long as they promise to keep the animal under control?

I am speaking right now of wild animals, true, but we are now within the boundaries that you yourself delineated: government interference in the ownership of living, breathing creatures. As for whether they are domesticated or not, one must ask, was the pittie ever meant as a domesticated family pet?

I would, personally, never own a pit bull. I do not believe they are the best choice for a family pet. While they aren't any more likely to bite than any other dog (in my experience), they can cause significant damage if they do bite. It's just easier to own a collie or a JR or a greyhound.

Would you mind very much if your neighbour had a badly trained pitbull, one that was kept away from you and yours by a fence that seemed a bit... iffy? Would you be inclined to let your kids or visiting kids play in your yard when the pittie next door was in his yard? If the owner was not amenable to your concerns (if any), how would you handle it? If the dog has yet to bite, and instead only appears vastly willing to do so, going to the authorities would gain nothing, so what would you do?

But I do not feel it is right to impose my choices on other people. I'm big on personal freedom.

Freedom to do what, though? To own something that is potentially a very real danger in our society? I maintain that all breeds that have been bred solely as fighting dogs are a danger in our society.

The responses in this forum only illustrate my point -- get the people arguing about a side issue and they forget what the damn Liberals are actually doing to our country. Distraction is a very effective form of control. And here I sit, coffee in hand, eating the cheese out of this particular mouse trap.

Yes, I would say your statement is, in itself, a brilliant distraction. It is always easy to say that, 'we have far more serious problems, this particular problem is nothing but a distraction.'.

While I may not agree with you, Haggis, I defend your right to your opinion. I'm not trying to change your views -- "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" -- I am simply expressing mine. Ain't freedom of speech grand?

Ditto, Cosmo. I am, as you, simply expressing my opinion, and if, in the process, we cause anybody to see a point they had previously not considered, we have done a good job. After all, aren't the truly free people the ones who are open to changing their views when shown reason to do so?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Would you mind very much if your neighbour had a badly trained pitbull, one that was kept away from you and yours by a fence that seemed a bit... iffy?

I actually had a pit bull that ripped a guy's face off living next to me for two or three years. The dog was part of the reason why the ban came in here in Winnipeg.

The catch is that the official story isn't what really happened. The guy who got attacked had been teasing the dog, which was tied to a steel table in the back room of a local bar, all night. The dog did nothing. Then the guy attacked the dog's owner. Guess what? The dog protected his owner.

Now, while I wouldn't have hopped into the neighbour's yard while the dog was out, that dog was generally well behaved and never left the property without a leash. He also liked cats and the cats knew it...they'd walk right up to him.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

I actually had a pit bull that ripped a guy's face off living next to me for two or three years. The dog was part of the reason why the ban came in here in Winnipeg.

The catch is that the official story isn't what really happened. The guy who got attacked had been teasing the dog, which was tied to a steel table in the back room of a local bar, all night. The dog did nothing. Then the guy attacked the dog's owner. Guess what? The dog protected his owner.

Are they protecting their owners when they attack small dogs and small children?

 

[Cosmo]

Yes, it is very much the same kind of annoying rhetoric as “Punish the deed, not the breed.” which is also just a bumper sticker sentiment, not a reasonable argument... but one you used.

Touche

When I agreed that I would be more likely to survive an attack from my JR than from a pit bull, I also qualified it by saying I would exercise more control over a more powerful animal. I also accepted all responsibility should my JR bite anyone. If she did, no matter how dearly I love her, I would take measures to ensure it never happened again. Even if it meant euthanasia.

Our government already prohibits keeping potentially dangerous animals as pets, ie wild cats. There are many who say these cats are wonderful pets. Would you say the government is exerting too much control by prohibiting ownership of these and other dangerous animals? Should people be able to own any sort of animal they want as a pet as long as they promise to keep the animal under control?

Absolutley. Where did our domestic animals of today come from? If an animal is properly cared for (and I think there needs to be stricter guidelines around this issue) and is properly controlled, I don't see anything wrong with having any animal as a pet.

Would you mind very much if your neighbour had a badly trained pitbull, one that was kept away from you and yours by a fence that seemed a bit... iffy? Would you be inclined to let your kids or visiting kids play in your yard when the pittie next door was in his yard? If the owner was not amenable to your concerns (if any), how would you handle it? If the dog has yet to bite, and instead only appears vastly willing to do so, going to the authorities would gain nothing, so what would you do?

I would take out the gun I'm not supposed to have and shoot it. Ok, I'm kidding.

In truth, if my neighbour had either a pet or a child that was potentially harmful to me or mine, I would do whatever was necessary to protect myself. To be honest, I've had more problems with neighbour's kids than their dogs. You can't give a kid a swift kick in the ass like you can a dog that is attacking your pet. Once I bought a "Super Soaker" and sprayed the neighbour's kid every time they teased my collie in our yard. Didn't make me popular but it got the parents keeping their brats under control. They thought I was nuts, but it worked.

Freedom to do what, though? To own something that is potentially a very real danger in our society? I maintain that all breeds that have been bred solely as fighting dogs are a danger in our society.

I own many things that are potentially dangerous. I have ant killer under my sink, I have two vehicles, I have a gun (pellet of course, since you don't have to register :wink: ), I have a very, very lethal butcher knife and a JR that may bite. I keep close control on all of them. They do pose a real danger. Many things in life do. Life is like that.

As for being bred solely for fighting dogs, I think this is a misconception. Pit bulls are a cross breed. The breeds from which they originate have various working purposes. While there is an element in our society that misuses these dogs, banning them is not the answer. Eliminating a symptom does not cure the ill. In this case, the ill is irresponsible pet owners.

Irresponsibility does not just fall into pit bull category. I carry a scar on my face from a german sheppard that attacked me when I was a small child.

So what sort of legislation would you propose, Haggis, to ensure the safety of citizens? Get rid of guns, mean dogs ... what else? Where does it stop? Where does personal responsibility figure into it? Do we really need a government to oversee us like a bunch of incompetent children?

I suggest education, not legislation, is a better solution.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

When I agreed that I would be more likely to survive an attack from my JR than from a pit bull, I also qualified it by saying I would exercise more control over a more powerful animal. I also accepted all responsibility should my JR bite anyone. If she did, no matter how dearly I love her, I would take measures to ensure it never happened again. Even if it meant euthanasia.

This comes to the 'responsible owner' aspect of things, and I would absolutely agree that if responsible owners were the majority, not the minority, then this would not be an issue.

The vast majority of owners, though - even the well-meaning ones - are not properly versed in the psyche and proper handling of dogs, especially dangerous breeds, and ergo, are not necessarily responsible enough to prevent a serious incident. Now, in the case of many breeds, this results in nothing more than an annoyance, but in the case of more dangerous breeds, it can be serious problem.

If an animal is properly cared for (and I think there needs to be stricter guidelines around this issue) and is properly controlled, I don't see anything wrong with having any animal as a pet.

Sure, stricter guidelines would help, but as long as we have humans in the formula we have human nature, and so I ask, can stricter guidelines possibly solve the problem? Aside from which, you speak of personal freedom from government interference, but don't stricter guidelines count as government interference?

In truth, if my neighbour had either a pet or a child that was potentially harmful to me or mine, I would do whatever was necessary to protect myself.

What, though? What would you do? What can the average law-abiding citizen do? 'Law-abiding' would not actually enter into any solution I personally would use in such a case, but the rights of truly law-abiding citizens, ones who would not break the law if faced with that sort of situation, must be considered. So, what would you (legally) do to resolve the problem? After a bite, the problem gets solved, but who wants to wait for that to happen? Before the bite, even stricter regulations will not cover a dog who appears willing to charge a fence and get you or your child.

So what sort of legislation would you propose, Haggis, to ensure the safety of citizens? Get rid of guns, mean dogs ... what else?

Well, we already do have gun control, and as for mean dogs, yes, I would vote for banning them. In countries where such banning has taken place, I have not heard of any problems as a result. It appears to have worked. If it works in other countries, I'd venture to say it stands a good chance of working here as well. If you have heard of problems come about from such bans in other countries, I would be interested in hearing them.

I suggest education, not legislation, is a better solution.

The education approach has been the approach for a long time. It doesn't appear to have worked, and therefore I believe we should follow the lead of nations who saw fit to ban dangerous breeds and have, it would seem, not suffered any negative consequences as a result.