Super Freak Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 No I don't think that they all should be banned, but you have to admit, there are a fair number of pitbull accidents. I think that you, when choosing a breed with a history like that of a pitbull, you should be registered and that animal should be specially licenced, and the owner should have certain liabilities over and above that average pet owner. Something like that anyway, if the animals were only in the hands of trained individuals then maybe less morons would get their hands on them(abuse etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Super Freak, those are some intelligent comments, and you have hit on a compromise with which I wouldn't even quibble. I would have nothing against licensing, education, etc. That would avoid most incidents. (It has been my experience that almost every dog-bite incident can be explained and could have been avoided if the owner/handler was properly educated and diligent.) We need licenses for cars (which can kill) why not dogs? I am just against banning a particular breed for many reasons, especially being that if we don't do something about moronic macho dog-owners, you can ban any breed you want and it will make little to no difference. See how agreeable I really am? :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I should also mention that my folks- in addition to a pit bull- own two cats, who seem to get along pretty well with Roscoe. Well I have seen with my own two eyes Roscoe playing/rough-housing with the cats, and at one point one of hte cat's entire head was inside Roscoe's mouth, Roscoe rolled his eyes around a little, lost interest and they both walked away calmly. Doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, I know, but a funnyish story nonetheless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 super freak can make sense of anything! she is one cool browntown mama, which is a great city full of wicked women! (some of whom moved away and have a really nice apartment with a super comfy futon if anyone ever wants to move to kitchener!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Kitchener! I have been trying to figure that one out for a while now. I thought that "Browntown" was actually some sort of obscure Ween reference ("Paintin' the Town Brown"). Why is Kitchener called that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 no, i used to live in brantford (aka browtown) and i moved to kitchener about six months ago. i miss all the brown folk so i offer them some free couch time every time i see them. browntown is a sh!tty place to live as it is economically depressed and almost completely devoid of culture, thus it is called browntown. the downtown is almost completely empty. all of the storefronts are boarded up and have fake stores painted on the boards. there is a guy named steve kun who owns a lot of the buildings down there and about once a year one of them or even more mysteriously burns down. i went to highschool with his son who is a big mean jerk. just total arrogance eminating from his pores. i have heard that mr. kun is pretty much the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Freak Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Cheers you guys!!! I just think that when dealing with fighting or protection breeds one should be well educated on the potential of the dog, good and bad. There is a lot of power behind some of these breeds(not just pitbulls) and they should not be sold "willy nilly" to just anyone with 1000 bucks. So, really, I guess I don't believe so much in a ban than strict breed regulation and licencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 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? I think the difference here is whether society believes ths right is worth the presumed risk.I am making an educated decision to let my kid ride in a car. But i take the precaution of properly fitting him into a booster and other weird precautions such as rarely driving with him at certain "Peak" times for drunken drivers or deer crossings... stuff like that.By enlarge society has determined cars to be a necessity in life worth many of the risks. - And also society has created laws to protect people from other people's negligence when using a motor vehicle. (ya i know, i'm not fighting in favour of cars and if we want to talk about the effectiveness of deterrent laws we'll be here another 2 days)It seems however that ontario no longer finds pittbull ownership a necessity in life worthy of the risk involved. I know its a slippery slope figuring out how much the state should rule our personal affairs but -- I put my kid in a carseat and dont allow him to cross the road without my help -- how am i suppose to armour him against somebody's crazy deadly dog that's gotten loose? We have been riding this slippery slope since the invention of law - Where do we draw the line when it comes to making laws for safetly? The cost involved in tamperproofing food and medicine must be off the scale - all because one moron poisoned some aspirine 15 years ago - but we seem to accept that law ok... i dunno - i obviously am speaking purely as a parent. Emotionally.btw - it might not sound like it, but i am not someone who is too cautious to let their kid experience life for fear of them getting hurt. I dont see anything wrong with a kid getting a dog bite here and there as they grow up - i had a westie terrier - i got bit A LOT. Gots me a stitch scar and everythin...but there's a big difference between a west highland terrier and a pittbull terrier -- i dont want my kid killed because some a$$hole abused a dog with a jaw that can break a adult's leg."a dingo ate my baby!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I agree with most of your points, h, and I don't mean to be harsh. It is just that the slippery slope argument is very important. Why only pitbulls? Why not rottweilers? Shepherds? Chows? Where does it end? There are many dogs that can break an adult's leg. Further, that is not the standard adopted. An animal that is 1/2 pitbull and 1/2 chihuaha probably cannot break an adult's leg. Should it be banned? It may be defined as a "pitbull". There is also the practical problem of enforcement. What if the animal is only 1/4 pitbull? 1/8? 1/16?.... It seems to me that a ban is entirely impractical and won't solve anything. The a_sholes you speak of will inevitably obtain a different breed of dog and train it to attack car tires until it is so aggressive that it is also a ruined animal for use as a pet. I am not against addressing this as a societal issue. I am against banning a breed of animal. The best compromise I have seen yet suggested came from Super Freak and was the suggestion of licensing. If owners had to pass a licensing test to own or handle a dog of "x" size, that would be acceptable to me. Presumably, people would have to carry that license whenever they are with the dog. Abuse = revocation of license. Allowing your dog to run at large = revocation of your license. etc. Maybe I am too much of a civil libertarian and animal lover, but I cannot support a ban on a domestic animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 i think educating and licensing the owners is the perfect solution, well as perfect as we are likely to get in reality. we should write a letter to the editor of the globe and mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 i dunno - in a perfect world licensing would be good - i read all the good arguments above for it - but i think if you look around at things we have licenses for - cars, boats, seadoos etc. You'll have to admit that just because someone has passed a test, it doesnt automatically make them responsible or less dangerous. Its a great idea, but i think it's probably just as impractical as banning. i havent really looked at the whole banning the breed thing as the breed will be destroyed - i was thinking more that they might go more out of style and people would simply bread them less. i dont know about the 1/4 pitbull - if you look at any of the humane society sites around the province, there are loads of lab/hound mixes with wickedly wide jaws - so ya there's tonnes of pitbull mixes out there for sure. (probably cuz the same morons dont fix them because they'll be more agressive) which brings up a question - what would be your thought on forced sterilization of pet pitbulls to go along with the license? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I would entirely support mandatory spay/neutering. It is the policy of most animal shelters of which I am aware before adopting animals out (including the one here in Whistler who is my client). The best justification for it, of course, is that there are already far too many domestic animals in our society. Everyone should be sterilizing his/her pets, as we simply do not need more. There are plenty to go around to any family who wants one. Again, I think that is a well-reasoned point and goes well with Super Freak's suggestion. (If only we were the Ontario Legislature...) Also, I hope I have not offended anyone's sensibilities on this thread. Believe it or not, I also like children (not only animals) and don't want anyone to be hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggzz Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Won't someone please think of the children! 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