Jaimoe Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 I remember reading that before the Athens Olympics commenced, the Greek government slaughtered tens of thousands of that city's stray dog population - in part to further beautify the city. I was and am still sickened by that, but I'm equally sickened in the realization that hundreds if not thousands of pitbulls in GTA Humane Society shelters etc... will meet a similar demise. I'd almost like to see violent owners of violent pitbulls get euthanized too. They are one of the main causes for violent pitbull behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 I've known lots sweethearts of pitbulls and other menacing looking dogs who'd never do anything hostile to anyone... almost lost my ear to a big dog earlier this year (17 stitches) but I'm still against the banning of any breed... the dog who bit me was mistreated as a pup and I was warned that it was of a jumpy disposition... my fault, I was tired and not thinking (I try to pay a little more attention now : people who bring a dog up to be hostile should be the ones punished, not any particular breed of dog... if your dog is of a particularly grouchy disposition its your responsibility to make sure its kept safely away from society, if you can't do that you don't deserve to keep the dog it really angers me when I come across dogs who've been 'toughened up', usually simply so the owner can look extra tough themselves or so it can be an alligator in the moat of their backyard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 The angry, aggressive pitbulls almost always have meat-head, angry, loser looking owners. I'm never surprised when I see the owners of pitbulls that are involved in attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 well see now, that's the thing... like cherry tomatoes and seedless cucumbers and tiny little dogs you can fit into your purse, pitbulls don't even exist in nature. we created them. to kill. But then we must also ban any other breeds meant for the same or similar use or ones that are "high risk" biters also,fair is fair since pitbulls are being banned across the board regardless of a clean blood line without history of producing pitbulls that attack or "snap",so in theory then Golden Retrievers & Cocker Spaniels should also be banned,obviously not every retriever or spaniel "snaps" & attacks or bites but then again neither do all pitbulls.Reading alot of comments here and online in general about this makes me remember this article I read at St.Lawerence College in Kingston a few years back,these students at Queens toured around grade schools,mostly kindergartens with different insects and spiders etc etc,they observed that the children were not really afraid of any of the creatures,but when they same creatures were taken back to Queens,just the mention of them or the removal from their cage made people cringe,feel faint,sick,scared and even leave the classroom in terror.Long story short,the findings and conclusions suggested that this was due to the kindergarten kids not being exposed enough to the negative myths/beliefs/realities of the creatures,since they had not been taught to fear them.Hope that made sense,its brief I know and sorta vague (it was over 5 years back I read that)but I believe that to be alot of the trouble,although defiantley not a cause at all.The real issue is the owners,sadly people have abused this dogs breeding and perpetuated the negative traits of the breed,which,has also been occured with Rotti's,Dobes,Mastiffs,Bulldogs,Chows,Shar-pei(sp?),Labs,Retreivers,standard poodles,shepards and numerous other breeds of dogs.This ban is selective and in my opinion is fueled alot by uneducation of both the people owning these dogs,breeding them and the people who fear them,in turn generalizing every pitbull as evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hux Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 ....there are some cats I'm afraid of! Great thread! Not so sure where I stand on this one. Interesting to note that this is the Ont. governments attempt to be proactive with no cash (thanks Ernie), annoucements like this, and the byo wine, and the school lunch stuff...all policies that don't require $$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'll be really disgusted if some of the 24 bucks I donate a month to the Humane Society gets used to euthanize pitbulls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 even reading this thread, all i could think was one day a pitbull is going to lock onto my ballsack, and then im really screwed. [color:"purple"]After that ballsack-grabbing-incident, I will be very impressed when you immediately go out and get "screwed". Guigsy's one tough guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 i dont know - as a parent of an only child at face level of a pitbull -- and as a person living in a town where the pitbulls and rotties are the breed of choice for some of the seedier parts of the community - it makes me feel way better - not just a little better - like sigh of relief better - the amount of times I'm going to have to cross the street to keep from walking past them on the street just decreased dramatically. Let alone the anxiety levels when one is running free ...Destroying animals - yep that's very bad - very bad - is banning pitbulls even a drop in the bucket to the amount of animals destroyed in Ontario? If euthanasia of animals and how destroying existing pitbulls relates to that is one of the issues here - hmm, wow, thats gonna require a lot more discussion... I am however very worried for the boxers left in her Ontario - they are an often abused breed by the types of owners who like mean dogs. Boxers are gentle by nature but unfortunely they can look fierce. Many owners abuse them to try to get them to be meaner. (which rarely works anyway) Now that they dont have pitbulls - what breeds are they going to turn to now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 I have a feeling Rottweilers will be the next dog to be on the banning list. Then what? Bull terriors? Incidently, this breed has all but had their violent past bred out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Australia has an interesting ban list i think it includes geman shepherds and bulldogs - i was extremely surprised to see the bulldogs on there cuz yes, they are also gentle from what i understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggzz Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 The other problem with this legislation and the way it is worded is that "pit bull" isn't even a recognized breed of dog. It is a family of dogs including bull terriers ( 3 or 4 others I can't think of right now) which shows that this was purely a knee jerk reaction by the government. If they are not even gonna put the time in to research the breed, what makes you think they are even going to waste their time trying to enforce it if it does go through. It'll be a logistical nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggzz Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 If YOU can't be responsible enough to look after YOUR dog and ensure the safety of those around YOU, then YOU should be charged. (YOU being the owner) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 They could have easily passed a pitbull muzzle law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 If YOU can't be responsible enough to look after YOUR dog and ensure the safety of those around YOU, then YOU should be charged. (YOU being the owner) As I said before. Our law already holds people civilly liable for owning/controlling a dangerous animal that harms someone. I don't know if criminal legislation would be feasible, though, and that is why no one will be "charged" in such a case; but I think that the civil liability addresses the problem, already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 i dont think the prosecution of the owner is much comfort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Again. As the law currently stands, a prosecution could not be contemplated. This is not a criminal matter. Incidentally. How do you view enforcement of this ban on pitbulls? Would that not involve bringing an action against a dog owner for owning a pitbull, or were you of the opinion that the dog, itself, should bear liability for being alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 i dont think the prosecution of the owner is much comfort. exactly. it doesn't change anything. if your kid gets killed by a pitbull and you get to ask the pitbull's owner for money, it still wont bring back your kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggzz Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 So the answer is to ban or legislate against anything that could "potentially" be dangerous. Starts a slide down the slippery slop I think, hell here in T.O. they are trying to put a ban on fresh sushi beacuae of the possiblility of a disease that has never ever affected a single pesron in Canada, let alone Toronto. We are all adults here folks and thusly we have to take responsibility for our own actions. That's why I feel the law needs to put more responsibility on hte owners because they are the ones making the choice to raise and take care of their pet in a proper manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Diggzz is taking the words right out of my mouth. For instance, I have not checked the statistics but I suspect that children were killed and injured last year by motor vehicles. I even suspect that there were more children killed or injured by motor vehicles than by dogs (including all varieties, for argument's sake). I will even go so far as to suggest that people who were not negligent were in control of or owned some of those motor vehicles. (I stand to be corrected on that, if someone wishes to check the stats and correct me.) If I'm correct, though, at what point should we be banning motor vehicles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 at what point should we be banning motor vehicles? right now! i don't know about you but i have wanted to learn to ride western for a while! :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 [color:"purple"]Aaaaaah. Interesting point, my librarian friend, however, I recall as a child being bitten by a horse right on the stomach. Now, shall we ban all horses or only certain breeds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 [color:"purple"]Aaaaaah. Interesting point, my librarian friend, however, I recall as a child being bitten by a horse right on the stomach. Now, shall we ban all horses or only certain breeds... fu©king smart ass! i refuse to argue with you, anyone else i'll argue with, just not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 hahahahahahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Freak Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I watched a show, can't remember what it was called, but it was about this poor kid, 2 years old, who had his face, literally, chewed right off by the family pet(pitbull). The pet was brought in to the family shortly after the child was born, so they were both babies when they met. I guess, by the mom's story, that the dog was an awesome family pet and a big suck etc, but one day in the yard, the mom, the dog and the kid were hanging out(as they did everyday) the dog, out of nowhere attacked the 2 year old and chewed the kid's face right off...face gone, kids life ruined. So I think I agree with the ban. I think that these dogs, maybe through inbreeding or something, have some kind of "snap factor". I'm with you guys on the dogs being a reflection of their owner but with this breed, I'd rather err on the side of caution(and I'm sure my kids would rather HAVE a face) and only see these animals in a controlled environment with licenced professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Fair enough. Coincidentally, however, I am currently acting in a legal action on behalf of a young woman in essentially the same position as the kid you speak of. In my client's case, her lips were bitten off. The dog, however, was a german shepherd. Should we start making a list of breeds and ban them one by one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now