CTV Ottawa - Pit bull ban not reducing dog bites in Ont.: THS

but they're just unpredictable enough that I'd never leave one alone with a child under 10 or so.

Still, the problem with pit bull bites is that they are so much more severe than bites from fussy old lady dogs like toy poodles, the top biters out there.

Nice people generally have nice dogs no matter what the breed is. Just know the breed and accept its strengths and limitations. Pit bulls are great for some people, especially people who love to play tug of war with a strong little dog. They're just not the best for apartment dwellers and people with young children.

The age & size of the person doesn't matter. The age & size of the dog doesn't matter.

Of course, Central Park is only 3 blocks away and, in fact, she just ran off leash in the big park all over creation as she does twice a day for a few miles each time! A lot of NYC owners do the same for their dogs.

If they lie about pitbulls, where will they stop?

caused by dogs.

I think most cities and towns ban lions and tiggers. I think the ban is PB ban is along the same lines.

She had a (benign) growth removed from her leg this morning, and the tanqs have worn off. She a little woozy, and favoring the leg now. Just wants to cuddle & snooze.

She will, of course, return it one hundredfold.
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

the humane society said."

ANYone that supports BSL that would ban bully breeds and "lookalikes" supports taking beloved family members away and killing them.

They can also SUCK IT.

Pit bull haters proven wrong? Done.

Takes time to see a change based on reducing prevalence of a dangerous breed.

They haven't worked in the US or Canada and they haven't worked anywhere they've been enacted. They are doomed to fail mainly because they target the wrong thing - the dog - rather than the actual problem - the abuse & mistreatment of dogs by people. Its like banning all red cars because speeding is a problem.

Take them out of the equation and you may not see much change in the number of bites, but you will see a change in the severity of injury.

Moreover, you'll eventually see a change in culture and preferences, just as we saw with Australia's firearms laws.

excuse me, irresponsible dog owners, to own one particular breed of dog, that this will help? Do you seriously believe those who are irresponsible or macho assholes will not simply pick another muscular type of dog?

Or are you saying that irresponsible and macho asshole owners are not the problem, but a particular body construction is?

and all this time I thought I was uppity on my own, not because I lived with a retriever/pit bull mix.

:rofl:

On way to ensure that less harm results is to keep unduly dangerous breeds out of their hands.

Of course, with pit bulls and several other breeds and crosses "designed" genetically to kill each other or attack animals and humans, there will also be unprovoked attacks and horrible maulings.

Dachshunds may bite and snap more often- but they aren't repeatedly out there killing people.

Your post is such bullshit it's not even funny!

Pit Bulls are NOT genetically designed to kill each other or humans.

Please tell me where you got your idiotic assertion.

You can find the dangerous breeds listed here:

http://www.warangers.asn.au/dangerous_dogs.htm

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

If anything, pit bulls have been bred to do what their human asks them to, to be responsive and gentle to people.

:rofl:

Please.

Glad you are getting it. There is hope after all.

Or do you mean those who have actually been put into dog fighting pits? Those ones who fight other dogs but don't turn on the people that handle them? Those ones?

Seems that banning ownership for the last several yrs would have "reduced the prevalence". Seems that reduction didn't cause any change as far as dog bites.

Odd

is really unfortunate.

a booming economy, excellent, well supported schools on every level, no mass shootings and a responsible media that doesn't look us in the face and lie to us about policy - yep, it is a good thing.

This quite aside from the fact that we're eliminating the American pit bull and other dangerous breeds.

you'll ban sharks from your waters. ZOMG!!!

:rofl:

----

:puke:

Why should this article be taken seriously?

has to own a Pit Bull? Whether it's a kid or an adult "billy wanna be bad ass" ..... he has to get a pit bull over any other dog breed out there? Reminds me of the old saying about guys getting a 'big truck' to compensate for their other shortcomings. Ha ha ..... but seriously. WHY?

Most of these 'billy wanna be bad asses' ..... seem to me to have no clue about responsible pet ownership. Pit Bull ownership seems to be some kind of 'status quo' to raise these guys egos, more so then wanting a pet for companionship or even caring about the pet in the first place. Getting the dog for protection? Fine .... then be as responsible for it as you would if you owned a 'tamed lion' that could get loose and roam the streets at any time. Noooooooo not a kitty ..... a lion.

Personally I don't believe that there are ANY inherently bad dog breeds from birth ... including Pit Bulls. I have, and have had friends with the sweetest Pit Bulls you would ever of known as pets from birth to death. Difference is their owners were not suffering from some immature outlook in the way they see the world, and they treated their pets as family members.

5 Pit bulls got loose and attacked a family taking a walk lately, a mom and her 4 kids ranging in age from 4 to about 10, in the town I reside in .... If it were 5 poodles ..... do you think the damage done would have been as severe? Or even the probability of the damage ??? Be honest. Done ranting on this subject ..... this should all be common sense. Signed .... dog owner all my life, many breeds...... luv um :)

I agree that it is annoying that macho assholes need to own pit bull, used to be rott, used to be dobbies, etc etc etc.

Any dog can bite. If those were 5 standard poodles, or 5 labrador retrievers, yes the damage would have been as severe. I think you are saying that any dog of a certain size should be banned because they can be dangerous. Tell me I'm wrong, please.

First you guessed wrong that I support banning dog breeds. Tell me on the second account what would do more sever damage a shark bite or a mosquito bite? Never-mind .... if you didn't understand my first post you won't understand this one either.

both of us go into the 'octagon' and bare handed ..... I take on a little vicious poodle. You take on a vicious 750 lb. Pit Bull. Whata ya say? I'm up for it. ;)

on final edit: to increase the size of the pit bull to 750 lbs .... just to have another laugh at some of these people and their silly argument. LOL ..... too funny. This was fun. :rofl:

:rofl:

okay you take on the 75 pound pit bull and I will still rather face the poodle. Geesh .... I can go back and edit my post ... you can't edit your stupidity.

Tell you what, Skippy. I HAVE entered that "octagon" and stolen FIGHT RAISED pitbulls right off their fucking chains with my bare hands. You know, the very dogs you're talking about? Bitten, me? Never. Rehabbed and adopted out? Done.

Good luck with your poodle.

Stupidity? All yours.

:rofl:

Again.

150 lb pit bull? No. They aren't that large. Which is probably why you edited.

Okay let me use a boxing analogy ..... there is a reason the Heavyweight champion of the world (MINIMUM 200 pounds) doesn't fight the Flyweight champion of the world (MAXIMUM 108 pounds) .... you figure it out .... ;) ....

"Personally I don't believe that there are ANY inherently bad dog breeds from birth".

So ..... we agree? I am giving you a hug ... and leaving this thread .... ps: the Pit bull increased to 750 pounds up-thread for kicks .... ;) ...

People swear that pit bulls are these huge dogs, slavering and just wanting, hoping, waiting, to get their locking jaws onto someone. Ever notice that stories about dogs say "pit bull mix" as opposed to "retriever mix" or "boxer mix"? OMGness sexys up news stories, and sells papers, but really doesn't help since too many are manipulated by the inaccuracies and OMGness.

for money. Most relevant of which was Professional Quarterback ..... Mike Vick.

The stigma attached to these poor dogs (victims) and their idiot owners (perpetrators) in this 'sport' (barf) is hard for the idiotic public at large to distinguish unfortunately. The movie 'Idiocracy' was a documentary.

Sorry to have tried to make my other point, by an exaggerated weight of bigger dogs in general (to be able to cause more damage).

Idiots don't that I have heard ..... generally train retrievers, poodles etc ... to fight. If they do .... they haven't gotten much press have they ....

Okay I wasn't supposed to come back to this thread .... ;) Bye now. :hi:

:rofl:

:rofl:

I could go on.

I made some valid points in this thread .... (if you bothered to read) but you chose to come at me with ridicule right off the bat.... your bad. So back at ya ..... All the best. :smoke:

You got shit, and posted it. Then got called on it. When someone mocks the idea of a "150 lb pitbull" which is obviously based on inherent ignorance on the topic, it's well deserved.

Don't pretend to know something about a topic when you don't. We ridicule Sarah Palin for the very same thing. Don't be like her, savvy King Poodlefighter?

http://www.muglestonspitbullfarm.com/males/goliath.html

Since you are into missing the original point of the whole argument anyway. Skippy. :P

Goliath is the exception that proves the rule. He is the product of conscious effort over three generations of dogs.

And being a pure bred, he's never going to see the inside of a fighting pit. And he's probably as sweet & gentle as everyone's been telling you Pit Bulls are.

Try again.

"Personally I don't believe that there are ANY inherently bad dog breeds from birth ... including Pit Bulls. I have, and have had friends with the sweetest Pit Bulls you would ever of known as pets from birth to death." end quote ....

Try again? Try what? To argue for argument sake? Whatever Snarky .... :rofl:

:toast:

Also, the added "t" to weigh. Can't explain that one!

woof

it is because you choose not to. That is all. :)

That is part of your original post in this subthread. That is the part we're discussing, which you seem to be disagreeing with me about since we are in agreement that "Personally I don't believe that there are ANY inherently bad dog breeds from birth."

of course ...... the 750 pound German Shepard could do the same amount of damage .... as the Pit Bull. Thank you for the discussion ....... and all the best ..... :toast:

next question?

BAN DACHSHUNDS!

with number of bites or likelihood of bites as one axis, and severity of bites as the other axis.

Then plot the dog breeds on that plane. The ones towards the upper-right would be fairly called "more dangerous" than those towards the lower-left.

They are big enough to cause serious harm and look like they have a tendency to bite. Chows too. American bulldog? Scary. As is English bulldog, Churchill aside.

Why is there not a thing to ban those? Matter of fact, looks like most of the dogs fall fairly close together on that chart so let's just ban dogs of a Certain Size instead.

I'm open to improvements on how to model it.

But in maths, it's very standard to model phenomena by (chance of it happening) x (impact of it happening). There's an entire concept devoted to that, in fact. It's called "expected value".

am bulldog, dalmation, standard dox (could bite seriously as they are good sized but true they are low), english bulldog, chow, all rate a tiny bit higher than pit bull.

Aussie cattle dog, akita, boxer, german shep, husky, rott, great dane and lab are slightly less but still big enough.

Chance of it happening (all those) X impact of it happening (listed dogs of large enough size for impact).

So, you are going for Big Dog ban? Wonder why the focus is only on the one breed then.

Like, lets arrest, prosecute & jail them. THAT would have a real effect.

than pit bulls do. But only slightly. Like those with slightly less tendency. Gotcha!


:crazy:

http://www.thelantern.com/campus/dog-treatment-a-concern-but-especially-in-ohio-1.1435570

“Because of the Pit’s drive to please and its high pain tolerance, they have become an easily manipulated breed,” Stancliff said. “These endearing traits made it the most popular fighting breed in the country.”

Although many such Pit Bulls live in a literal dog-eat-dog world, activists point out that any dog can kill. In Los Angeles in 2000, for instance, a 10-pound Pomeranian killed a baby.

“Obviously that was a problem with that particular dog, not the breed,” Stancliff said.

In fact, the 17 fatal dog attacks over the past 42 years in Ohio were committed by 11 different dog breeds, according to the National Canine Research Council.

:love:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They've taken over the traditional "pit bull" reputation.
:sarcasm:

The study does not show the number of dog bites compared to the number of dogs in the province. Nor does it adjust for changes to the province's population or for the severity of attacks.

<snip>

Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby unsuccessfully mounted a challenge of the ban in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The ban was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal in an October 2008 decision.

"The total ban on pit bulls is not 'arbitrary' or 'grossly disproportionate' in light of the evidence that pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation," the court said in its decision.

"This evidence of unpredictability provided the legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls."


-------------------------- end of quote from the column in the OP ------------------------

Without knowing the number of dogs and humans in the community and the extent to which each group changed in size, the conclusion that bites have not been reduced per person or per dog cannot be maintained.

We know that dog bites go hand in hand with irresponsible owners, but we also know that severity of bite matters. Pit Bulls inflict severe damage, more than most breeds.

is it because they are a bigger dog than most breeds? Is it because of that locking jaw thing?

Why do you say that?

Fox News was here.

Why do you look for excuses to try to avoid that truth?

excuses to try and promote that lie?

See my signature, which is quoted from the finding of the appeals court in Canada, finding that the legislature's decision to ban pit bulls was well founded.

You're free to your own biased opinion.

:rofl: :crazy:

Your inability to acknowledge that truth is not surprising.

link is not surprising.

Hint. Anyone can put anything in their sig line.

Another hint. Repeating "it's the trooth" over and over doesn't make it so.

Bonus hint. "it's a quote" isn't a source.

It's a quote from the column which is linked in the OP, and it is about the court's finding.

As I said, you simply cannot handle the truth.

"It's a quote from a court finding supporting a legislative ban on pit bulls."
"which is quoted from the finding of the appeals court in Canada, finding that the legislature's decision to ban pit bulls was well founded."

Nope, don't see where you said it's a a quote from the column in the OP. Still no LINK to the article?

No, no link. Simply repeating "it's the truth!" clap your hands and believe. No link to something showing what you say is "the truth". Nope.

I find this in OP link (notice the link?)
"In announcing the plan to ban the breed, then attorney general Michael Bryant said in 2004 that pit bulls were "inherently dangerous animals" and "ticking time bombs."

But a statistical survey completed by the THS, which opposes breed-specific legislation and euthanizing animals, suggests that the ban on the breed has not reduced the number of dog bites in the province. It said the number of dog bites in the province has not significantly decreased since the ban came into effect. "

If you've read the article linked in the OP, you've read the quote in my signature, which was taken from that source.

Stop pretending you can't find it or that it's not the holding of the appeals court in Ontario.

""This evidence of unpredictability provided the legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls.""

What evidence. There is no evidence there, only someone saying there is evidence. And that quote (with no provided evidence) does NOT say "Pit Bulls inflict severe damage, more than most breeds. " which you started this subthread with.

OK, you finally point out it is in op for me. Thank you. Still it is not proof that "Pit Bulls inflict severe damage, more than most breeds. " Proof of that assertion is needed or you as simply helping tinkerbelle.

All dogs "have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile (dogs) may attack without warning or provocation,"

Rottweilers & GSDs are stronger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbwMs7cjK0Y

Should GSDs be banned as well?

it will become real? Clapping my hands now....I believe!

So I guess it is "truth" only in certain states.

and call it fact.

Remember they did that with Bush and how great he, Cheney, Rove, et al were?

It's good not to be some idiot wearing blinders on a topic.

Pretending that pit bulls don't inflict more severe bites than most breeds is indefensible.

Or shut up.

And don't use bullshit media accounts, or a debunked CDC report or a flushed because it's shit Merritt Clifton report.

Go.

Try again. Judicial "findings" gave Bush an election. You want to buy into that pick and choose bullshit and affirm that W won?

I don't attempt to persuade pit bull zealots. I find their rabid devotion to a really messed up breed amusing.

As usual.

We come full circle once again. Let the record (this thread) show that once again, you lose.

Who is next?

:eyes:

Judicial findings and opinions are over turned. They are not "proof" in themselves. mrbush was lawfully elected president.

no link to prove that. Saying "it's in an article I quoted" doesn't work. Neither does a subjective opinion.

clap clap clap clap clap, oh tinkerbelle, hang in there!

clap your hand saying "I believe" and it becomes truuf. Repeat something often enough and it becomes truuf (that is "the big lie", a known thing)

I'd post a pic if I figured out this silly html format.

Actually, Killer (my dog) eats bugs, but right now he's sleeping between me and my boyfriend. A couple weeks ago a dog tried to kill him, straight up attacked him, and he backed off and just tried to keep the dog away, no aggressive attacking at all. I was proud of him.

The only thing Killer kills is flowers. Vicious pit bull.

Before the other dogs' owner called him back, Orchid backed off & went to hide behind me.

She's really a big wimp.

but these stories never advance the dialogue. If the answer isn't "Ban pit bulls" or "Don't ban pit bulls" -- then what IS the answer?

Can we please talk about solutions? Folks, what is the answer? Owner education? Public education? Childhood education? Personally I think less dogs would bite if more people knew how to read their behavior, but how does a free society accomplish that?

I would love to hear useful, workable solutions to stopping dog bites/killings. Can we have a discussion about that?