Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 16, 2004, 12:54 AM

'Pit bulls - banned,' Ontario says
Current owners may keep pets but they must be leashed, muzzled; Ontario vets says they weren't consulted and legislation is bad

FROM CANADIAN PRESS

Public outrage over a spate of vicious pit bull attacks this summer has prompted Ontario to say it will become the first province to ban the breed.

"Pit bulls - banned," Attorney General Michael Bryant said today as he announced that legislation would be introduced within a month, the first such provincial law in Canada.

"We are banning pit bulls in Ontario."

If passed, the proposed legislation would allow current owners of the fierce, squat, muscular dogs to keep their pets, but they will face "severe restrictions."

"They will be muzzled, they must be leashed and they must be neutered or spayed," Bryant said.

There may be other restrictions as well, he said.

If the legislation is passed there will be a transition period following which it will be illegal to breed, sell, buy, possess or import a pit bull in the province, he said.

Those who break the ban could be prosecuted.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968793972154

CD Hanks · Oct 16, 2004, 12:56 AM

Complete and utter stupidity.

Pit-Bulls are very sweet natured dogs. It's the asshole owners who turn them into extremely aggressive and vicious animals. And some inbreeding done to the dogs by the owners.

"HAY LETS COMPLETELY IGNORE THE REAL PROBLEM AND FIX IT THE QUICK AND EASY WAY! JUST LIKE OUR DEAR FRIENDS IN THE SOUTH!"

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 16, 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:

"HAY LETS COMPLETELY IGNORE THE REAL PROBLEM AND FIX IT THE QUICK AND EASY WAY! JUST LIKE OUR DEAR FRIENDS IN THE SOUTH!"

"Bryant said similar bans are in place in France, Britain and Germany."

CD Hanks · Oct 16, 2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
"Bryant said similar bans are in place in France, Britain and Germany."

So? I never said intelligence was infectious.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 16, 2004, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Complete and utter stupidity.

Pit-Bulls are very sweet natured dogs. It's the asshole owners who turn them into extremely aggressive and vicious animals. And some inbreeding done to the dogs by the owners.

Yes some are sweet but almost all of the maulings here in the past 20 years have been because of pitbulls. Do only pitbulls get bad owners.

I love many pitbulls also but some are very dangers because they have large mouths and the jaw can lock even when they are dead.

I agree with the plan.

CD Hanks · Oct 16, 2004, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Yes some are sweet but almost all of the maulings here in the past 20 years have been because of pitbulls. Do only pitbulls get bad owners.

I love many pitbulls also but some are very dangers because they have large mouths and the jaw can lock even when they are dead.

I agree with the plan.

While the plan works, it's a stopgap measure. I don't know how long it will take for these asshole pet owners to find some other breed of dogs to use as security drones, and then consequently get them banned as well, but it probably will happen.

German shepards also have jaws that can lock. (Pretty sure it's german sheps...)

shabbasuraj · Oct 16, 2004, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
While the plan works, it's a stopgap measure. I don't know how long it will take for these asshole pet owners to find some other breed of dogs to use as security drones, and then consequently get them banned as well, but it probably will happen.

German shepards also have jaws that can lock. (Pretty sure it's german sheps...)

AGREED. This ban is without merit, and will do nothing for protecting the public from dangerous animals and the morons who keep such animals.

It is amazing how fast a government can mobilize a piece of legislation without doing prior research and consultations from the experts in the field (i.e., veterenarians)

I am going to do everything I can to ensure this bill does not pass.

AKcrab · Oct 16, 2004, 02:02 AM

Once pit bulls are banned, then it will be rotweilers, dobermans, german shepherds, and mastiffs. I could take *any* large breed and make it extremely dangerous.

People are the problem, not the dogs.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 16, 2004, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by AKcrab:

People are the problem, not the dogs.

Ban people?

fireside · Oct 16, 2004, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Ban people?

better yet, make all the stupid people live with gays so then the stupid people will get the "gay disease" and then they won't be able to pro-create anymore!

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 16, 2004, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by fireside:
better yet, make all the stupid people live with gays so then the stupid people will get the "gay disease" and then they won't be able to pro-create anymore!

Fine, only if they are hot though.

AKcrab · Oct 16, 2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Ban people?

Ha! Yeah, that's what I said.
I always thought you were Zimphire.

CD Hanks · Oct 16, 2004, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Fine, only if they are hot though.

After enough alcohol, you (like damn near any guy on the planet) won't care what they look like, so long as there is an orifice that will provide adequate friction.

So get ready, there's a reason why homosexuality is on the rise globally. Personally I see it as a godsend, atleast it'll keep the population levels in check, and without having to resort to an Ebola outbreak.

Here's to queers! (seriously!)

MacNStein · Oct 16, 2004, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
So? I never said intelligence was infectious.

*zing!* Well said.

Pit Bulls are fine, but like any big dog, if they're mistreated and taught to be aggressive, they will be. Tie up and muzzle the owners, not the dogs.

Logic · Oct 16, 2004, 04:39 AM

IIRC it's only the Pit Bull Terrier that's banned in those other countries. And that is understandable since those were responsible for most(up to a third) or attacks by dogs on humans there.

The Pit Bull Terrier is a problem that needs to be dealt with in one way or the other.

Angus_D · Oct 16, 2004, 04:52 AM

Pit bulls have been banned here (as mentioned above) for at least 5 years (I can remember when they brought the legislation in, I think). There certainly haven't been as many reports of vicious attacks by dogs, and nor has there been a move to outlaw other breeds.

Pit bulls are dangerous animals. You have to draw a line somewhere. In my opinion pit bulls fall on the "restricted" side of the line, as without proper handling they can be a danger to the public.

TETENAL · Oct 16, 2004, 05:08 AM

Dangerous dogs like the pit bull are not directly "banned" in Germany, but there are strict restrictions (differ from country to country) on who can hold them and how they can be held. For example they always have to be walked on a leash and with a muzzle.

They also have to be made infertile and can not be traded or otherwise given away.

An Alias · Oct 16, 2004, 06:00 AM

In the UK, most pitbull owners are either drug dealers, scabby unemployed druggies who can't utter a coherent word, or people who feel inadequate without having a deformed looking mutt beside their heels.

Sandbaggins · Oct 16, 2004, 08:03 AM

Its those ratbastard owners that smack their dogs around to teach/condition them to be aggressive.

Same thing would happen to a French Poodle but it wouldn't be able to put the canine death grip like a Pitbull can.

Uneducated ruffian owners

The Oracle · Oct 16, 2004, 08:14 AM

I worked for years and years with different dogs in kennels. With precision, you could pinpoint which dogs were the nasty ones. Overwhelmingly, they were pit bulls, rotweilers, dobermans, and dalmations. Also the little 'purse/pocket' dogs were nasty biters. It was very rare that I saw other aggressive breeds.

Part of it is with the owner, and part of it is simply in the breed to be aggressive and crazy.

Zimphire · Oct 16, 2004, 09:50 AM

Again, it's all on how you raise them. Bekah's mom has one. BIG dog.

He thinks he is a cuddly lap dog.

Oneota · Oct 16, 2004, 10:02 AM

It's possible that even if this law passes, it'll end up being one of those laws on the books that's never enforced. At least, once all the publicity being stirred up dies down.

paingold · Oct 16, 2004, 01:20 PM

I love many pitbulls also but some are very dangers because they have large mouths and the jaw can lock even when they are dead.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO,
There is no scientific evidence behind your claim of "locking jaws". I know it's probably something you heard on the news or read in the paper. But is simply not true. Please don't spread these myths. I don't own a Pit Bull or any other dog breed for that matter. I have though tried to educate myself as much as I can about the breed. I'm not here to start an argument either.

A little education on the breed for you:
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm

Regards

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 16, 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by paingold:
Disgruntled Head of C-3PO,
There is no scientific evidence behind your claim of "locking jaws".

Lock or no lock they are still responsible for most maulings.

Zimphire · Oct 16, 2004, 02:37 PM

Those dogs mostly are only aggressive if trained to be that way.

The owners should be taken out back and shot. Not the dogs.

DBursey · Oct 16, 2004, 02:52 PM

Not the case. These dogs have latent aggression because of selective breeding done in the past.

Toronto in particular and Ontario in general has witnessed a spate of maulings, most of children, in the past few years. Deaths and disfigurements have been commonplace in the news.

A recent study suggests that these dogs, representing a mere 1% of the canine population in the province was responsible for over 50% of the attacks.

Dog ownership is to be grandfathered with rigorous restrictions placed on the owners (including sterilizing the animal and muzzling in public, etc). No new dogs will be allowed.

Too many kids have been maimed. Public safety trumps the interests of a minority of wannabe putbull owners. This ban is well in keeping with the public interest IMO.

Angus_D · Oct 16, 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by DBursey:
Too many kids have been maimed. Public safety trumps the interests of a minority of wannabe putbull owners. This ban is well in keeping with the public interest IMO.

But it's my right to own a dangerous animal that could maul your children! You're turning into a damn nanny state full of COMMIE TERRORISTS!

Yose · Oct 16, 2004, 03:01 PM

The pit-bull ban is an overreation that I agree with; the banning will do exactly what it sets out to do and that is reduce/eliminate attacks by pitbulls just as it has done in Winnipeg (I believe it is Winnipeg) where Pitbull attacks have gone from 27/yr to 0/yr since the ban was put in place. Does this legislation address other dangerous animals or the owners that create them? No, it was not designed to.

It is my personal opinion that if you want to own a Dog you need to have a license for ownership in addition to a license for the dog that will also be spayed/neutered. It makes me really sad to see dogs who live with families who just don't know how to deal with them, ie: establish an alpha position, properly train and socialize them.

*Think spaying and neutering is wrong? That's fine but until there are no more homeless pets in the humane society I think breeding especially needs to be controlled in cities.

Kilbey · Oct 16, 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Fine, only if they are hot though.

Ugly people need love too!

Seriously, back on topic:
The ban is uncalled for. Simply make the owner responsible and make them pay if their dog hurts someone. If you happen to own a dangerous dog, you are simply more likely to pay if it hurts someone. Kind of like the people with unsafe cars. They are taking chances. It's all about calculated risk.

Personally, if I had a neighbor with a dangerous dog I would find a way for that dog to "go away". Gotta protect your own.

Yose · Oct 16, 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Ugly people need love too!

Seriously, back on topic:
The ban is uncalled for. Simply make the owner responsible and make them pay if their dog hurts someone. If you happen to own a dangerous dog, you are simply more likely to pay if it hurts someone. Kind of like the people with unsafe cars. They are taking chances. It's all about calculated risk.

Personally, if I had a neighbor with a dangerous dog I would find a way for that dog to "go away". Gotta protect your own.

The problem with your approach is that once a kid is mauled/killed there is no way any monetary punishment is going to makeup for that pain and suffering, right?

And since KIT was only a prop car and AFAIK only dogs and not cars have a mind of their own I don't believe your car/dog analogy has much merit.

OldManMac · Oct 16, 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Ugly people need love too!

Seriously, back on topic:
The ban is uncalled for. Simply make the owner responsible and make them pay if their dog hurts someone. If you happen to own a dangerous dog, you are simply more likely to pay if it hurts someone. Kind of like the people with unsafe cars. They are taking chances. It's all about calculated risk.

Personally, if I had a neighbor with a dangerous dog I would find a way for that dog to "go away". Gotta protect your own.

So, even if the child isn't killed, but injured or disfigured, monetary payments will alleviate the pain and suffering that may last for years?

We have a lot of laws on the books that make people responsible for their actions, and they ignore them regardless. We can't eliminate people from this equation, but we can eliminate the dogs. There is no "ideal" way to deal with this question, but eliminating the damage-causing element is preferable to doing nothing.

Angus_D · Oct 16, 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Simply make the owner responsible and make them pay if their dog hurts someone.

Two problems here:
1) Money after pain is not as good as no pain in the first place.
2) An overly litigious society where we sue everyone for everything is not a good idea.

Kilbey · Oct 16, 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Yose:
The problem with your approach is that once a kid is mauled/killed there is no way any monetary punishment is going to makeup for that pain and suffering, right?

And since KIT was only a prop car and AFAIK only dogs and not cars have a mind of their own I don't believe your car/dog analogy has much merit.

See, your blaming the car and the dog. The blame lies with he owners.

I never mentioned monetary punishment. Jail time is appropriate is someone gets hurt.

Kilbey · Oct 16, 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by KarlG:
So, even if the child isn't killed, but injured or disfigured, monetary payments will alleviate the pain and suffering that may last for years?

We have a lot of laws on the books that make people responsible for their actions, and they ignore them regardless. We can't eliminate people from this equation, but we can eliminate the dogs. There is no "ideal" way to deal with this question, but eliminating the damage-causing element is preferable to doing nothing.

People need to pay for their actions.

A child of a Friend of mine was attacked by their Jack Russell Terrier. He will have a scar on his face his entire life now. Lets ban Jack Russell Terriers. Personally, I blame my friends for their dog's behavior. They didn't teach the dog to respect people. The incident did lower my opinion of them.

EDIT: I am sorry I used the word "pay" in my earlier post. I meant "pay" as in jail time.

Kilbey · Oct 16, 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Two problems here:
1) Money after pain is not as good as no pain in the first place.
2) An overly litigious society where we sue everyone for everything is not a good idea.

When I said "pay" I meant as in jail time.

But I can see how you thought I said otherwise. I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

rambo47 · Oct 16, 2004, 04:19 PM

Substitute "Handgun" or "Assault Rifle" for "Pitbull" and give it some thought.

OldManMac · Oct 16, 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
People need to pay for their actions.

A child of a Friend of mine was attacked by their Jack Russell Terrier. He will have a scar on his face his entire life now. Lets ban Jack Russell Terriers. Personally, I blame my friends for their dog's behavior. They didn't teach the dog to respect people. The incident did lower my opinion of them.

You already said that people need to pay for their actions, in your first reply on this thread; you didn't need to say it again. You also didn't address my point, but that's typical.

Yose · Oct 16, 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Kilbey:
See, your blaming the car and the dog. The blame lies with he owners.

The owner of the car is responsible for it's safety, agreed.
The owner of the dog is responsible for it's training, agreed.

Do I really have to ask which can operate outside the instructions of it's owner? Please don't come back saying a car will make the decision to slip out of gear or jump a barrier and kill someone.

Atomic Rooster · Oct 16, 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
So? I never said intelligence was infectious.

quoted!

Spheric Harlot · Oct 16, 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by rambo47:
Substitute "Handgun" or "Assault Rifle" for "Pitbull" and give it some thought.

Read the thread and give it some thought.

Atomic Rooster · Oct 16, 2004, 04:44 PM

The dogs were bred for their viciousness as others were bred for retrieving. It's in their nature and all it takes is some idiot owner to bring it out.

In England, back in the 1850s, boxers were cross-bred with Stratfordshire Terriers for the disgusting purpose of pit fighting.

Too many incidents prove idiots exist. Can't ban idiots so the next best thing is to ban the breed.

They aren't even recognized by The American Kennel Club.

OldManMac · Oct 16, 2004, 05:00 PM

Some people can't see that, so they always use their anecdotal stories to justify their position, when evidence suggests otherwise. If it saves one child a lifetime of physical and emotional pain or disfigurement, the dogs have to go.

anti-sleep · Oct 16, 2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by rambo47:
Substitute "Handgun" or "Assault Rifle" for "Pitbull" and give it some thought.

Oh, what, now even Rambo is against gun control?

AKcrab · Oct 16, 2004, 05:28 PM

Bicycles are responsible for more than twice the number of injuries caused by dogs within children ages 0-14.

Shall we ban bikes?

TheBadgerHunter · Oct 16, 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Bicycles are responsible for more than twice the number of injuries caused by dogs within children ages 0-14.

Shall we ban bikes?

No, we'll ban children. Do you know how many kids grow up and hurt people? Its criminal I tells ya!

i_rooster · Oct 16, 2004, 05:56 PM

there are many things being said in this thread that can be either true or false.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 16, 2004, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

The owners should be taken out back and shot. Not the dogs.

Right, the Christian way.

Spheric Harlot · Oct 16, 2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Bicycles are responsible for more than twice the number of injuries caused by dogs within children ages 0-14.

Shall we ban bikes?

I've never seen, nor heard of, a bike that ran right across a park lawn on its own when briefly unattended and bit a five-year-old in the throat until it died.

Nor have I heard of a gun that jumped out of its holster, sped across the street and started shooting at somebody - on its own.

And the last time I heard of a car going off on its own and killing a child when the mother was inattentive was when an Audi automatic allegedly jumped into gear of its own accord and crushed the kid. (The story is quite impossible, never happened anywhere else ever, but the bad press and subsequent out-of-court settlement effectively killed the US market for Audis for ten years.)

Anybody trying to draw parallels to gun control, bike banning, or car banning, is either thoroughly missing the point or setting up strawmen.

-s*

i_rooster · Oct 16, 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

Nor have I heard of a gun that jumped out of its holster, sped across the street and started shooting at somebody - on its own.

-s*

something worse has happened

i_rooster · Oct 16, 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

And the last time I heard of a car going off on its own
-s*

something worse has happened - II