Rocket Talk: When's the TTC Going to Roll Out More Fare Collection Methods?
Newsstand: November 9, 2009
Zack Taylor in Disney Mama Drama
Santa's Weston Workshop
The Daily Photoist: November 9, 2009
Recently, the Toronto Sun reported that over 500 pit bulls have been killed since the breed was banned sixteen months ago. With temperatures in Toronto well below freezing, those still lucky enough to be alive are suffering due to their salt-ridden and frozen paws, unable to lick them because of the muzzles on their faces.
The pit bull police were back in court in December, presenting new evidence that all pit bulls are "inherently aggressive ticking time bombs," as Attorney General Michael Bryant has labeled them. On August 29, 2005, the provincial government amended the Dog Owners Liability Act with Bill 132 to include a ban on all pit bulls.
A legal challenge to oppose the bill was filed by the patron saint of advocacy, Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby on behalf of a young, female pit bull owner called Catherine Cochrane and a coalition of five organizations, including The Dog Legislation Council of Canada and Advocates for the Underdog.
The manoeuvre is widely seen as a delaying tactic aimed at increasing the challenger’s legal fees to the point where they will have to admit (financial) defeat. An interesting move on behalf of Mr. Bryant who was also, ironically, the Minister in charge of Democratic Renewal.
Despite overwhelming evidence given by the more than 80 of the 103 presenters at four public committee hearings, the Liberal government, spearheaded by Mr. Bryant, went ahead with its ban. During one press conference, the Attorney General described a 150-pound pit bull that had attacked a helpless victim. That’s terrible except for one thing: 150-pound pit bulls do not exist. A true pit bull is an American Staffordshire Terrier or American Pitt Bull Terrier, which weighs no more than 80 pounds. The 150-pound dog in question could have been any number of large breeds, such as the Perro de Presa Canario, which is now being labeled as a pit bull.
Interestingly, statistics show, year after year, that it is actually German Shepherds who cause most dog bites per year. The media simply don’t report them because they don’t hold the same cache and possibility for terrifying headlines as the much-maligned pit bull, made infamous by rappers like Snoop Dog and DMX.
PETA names pit bulls as the "most abused in dogdom." As such, perhaps Mr. Bryant should look into banning irresponsible owners who beat their pit bulls to make them aggressive.
Pit bulls actually score 82% on the American Temperament Test Society’s evaluation, higher than Golden Retrievers, German Shepherds, Cocker Spaniels and many other breeds. Historically, they were referred to as "nanny dogs" because of how even-tempered, loving and loyal they were towards children.
In the end, how does one defend banning an entire breed, or breed specific legislation? In Toronto and the world over, men cause most violent attacks and sexual assaults. Does that mean they should be banned too?
Header photo by rubbergorilla from the Torontoist Flickr pool; pit bull photo by eatingsnowflakes from Flickr.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
As someone who grew up with a rottweiler as the family pet (one of the most gentle, intelligent dogs I've ever met by the way), this ban frustrates me to say the least. What's even more frustrating is that the government pushes this anti-pit bull legislation through while dragging its feet on making improvements to pathetically outdated animal cruelty laws. Hint: most aggressive dogs get that way because their owners neglect them, not because any one breed is inherently evil.
Ahhhhh, the tired ol' pit bulls are evil myth.
Put any dog through proper obedience training and treat it properly, and there'll be no problems with aggression.
The problem is the owner, not the dog.
Totally agree with the previous comments - but if the breed makes no difference, why don't we hear about terrible attacks by golden labs? Do dog owners only neglect pit bulls, not other breeds?
Firstly, I'm not sure of the point of this post. There's nothing particularly current about it, so it's really just someone spouting off an opinion about their own particular hot button issue.
But anyway...did you actually even bother to read the site you linked to? "Golden and Labrador Retrievers have a reputation for being friendly and good-natured. The high number of bites is because they are very common. The Dutch survey found that for Rottweilers and Bull Terriers, the chances of biting are seven and six times higher respectively than for other pedigree breeds." That's precisely the opposite of what you're claiming the study demonstrates - that pit bulls are less dangerous than other breeds.
Moreover, a 20 year study in the US found that although pitbulls make up a relatively small part of the dog population, they were responsible for 32% of all deaths by dog attack (google "pit bull attack and look for the SF Gate article). It's not simply that they are more inclined to attack, but when they do, they're far more vicious. This shouldn't surprise anyone - sheepdogs herd sheep, greyhounds run, pit bulls fight. Centuries of breeding tends to have that effect.
I would agree that it's rarely the fault of the dog, but of the owner. Similarly, gun violence isn't the fault of the firearm, but I wouldn't recommend giving them away at the Humane Society.
And yes, I own a dog, who to date has not bitten anyone.
I have never met a pit bull who wasn't absolutely lovely and friendly. I'm totally against a ban, but very much for stronger penalties for dog owners and especially breeders of aggressive/strong breeds.
Look, we all know pit bull and box-headed breeds are incredibly strong and are a serious weapon if mishandled. The law should go after people who breed pits for fighting (the flat cropped ears and lobbed tail are the first signs) and those who flaunt the existing dog laws.
Almost every pit bull attack involves a dog that is improperly secured or contained. People around this city, in particular, need to obey the damn law that requires your damn dog to be on a goddamn leash. It's for a reason. I don't care how well-behaved or obedient your dog is.
Just yesterday, my dog was having, um...bowel issues and when she was crouching and distraught as Niagara Falls exited her balloon knot, some stupid dog off its leash came running over and started bothering her mid-gush (the owner was about a block away, called to the dog, and of course was ignored). If my dog wasn't so passive, there could have been a fight. Off-leash dogs come running at my dog all the time in the street, and if you know dogs, you know how complicated canine confrontations can be. When one dog is shackled and another isn't, the leashed one is often going to feel threatened and defensive and may bite.
Pits, like other dogs, need to be diligently controlled by humans. In fact, dogs are more comfortable when the alpha roles aren't in question and when it's clear where their place in the pack is. Of course, much more significant damage can be done by a strong-jawed dog, but it should never reach that point of attack in the first place if the dog is properly contained and secured. Those who are found to be breeding aggressive dogs should be subjected to harsh animal cruelty laws. Aggressive bloodlines should be phased-out as soon as possible, and if necessary, the dogs euthanized. Dogs are not aggressive by nature, and almost always become that way at the hands of a human.
Pit bulls are also not natural guard dogs like German Shepherds are, and the original breed temperament is mild and child-friendly. They can be dominating and assertive -- usually to non-humans -- and therefore need to always be on a lead, just like breeds (like my dog) who bolt running when released. Owners need to be insured and ready to deal with any consequences of choosing a powerful animal.
As for muzzles and salty feet, if the pads are splitting because of the salt, the dog should be wearing boots. Licking them makes the problem worse.
Hey Ursula,
Great post!
We await the decision which will hopefully come out soon. It's been a long haul, as you know.
Let's hope this issue can finally be put aside and that officials will enforce leashing and licensing instead of persecuting innocent citizens for no valid reason.
Selma
"The Dutch survey found that for Rottweilers and Bull Terriers, the chances of biting are seven and six times higher respectively than for other pedigree breeds." That's precisely the opposite of what you're claiming the study demonstrates - that pit bulls are less dangerous than other breeds."
Well since neither Rottweilers or Bull Terriers are "pit bulls" your comment has no basis
"And yes, I own a dog, who to date has not bitten anyone"
As do 99.9 percent of the people who own "pit bulls" and yet their dogs are targeted for bans and extinction..even though they have never done ANYTHING wrong.. fear is based upon the "way they look"
Wikipedia - "A pit bull is a member of any of a number of breeds of dogs developed from the English Bulldog. Breeds recognized as pit bulls include the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier, although the name is also often used to refer to other breeds of similar characteristics, such as the American Bulldog and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and mixed breeds that include any of these breeds."
Obviously a Rottweiler is a separate breed; I left it in the quote for the sake of completeness. The point is that breeds which commonly (and in the case of Ontario, legally) fall under the broader term "pit bull", are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of dog attacks. Splitting hairs over semantics doesn't change that fact.
In the long term it makes sense to breed the aggressiveness out of certain types of dog, in the same way that it was bred into them. That would also see the extinction of the breed, and the rise of new breeds, as has gone on for centuries. In the short term, I think it's worthwhile to exercise some control over them.
The point is that breeds which commonly (and in the case of Ontario, legally) fall under the broader term "pit bull", are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of dog attacks. Splitting hairs over semantics doesn't change that fact."
OK, I wasn't going to get into this, but unfortunately, this information is incorrect.
The two Canadian and one US purebred inaccurately dubbed 'pit bulls' are, first of all, extremely rare in Ontario - fewer than 1,000 dogs of all 3 breeds provincewide. To put this into perspective, Ontario's dog population is estimated at 2 - 2.5 million.
There has never been a reported bite in Ontario by two of the purebreds. The third was implicated in one attack which took place in 1995. Even in Toronto, the so-called 'pit bull' was responsible for only 4% of reported bites according to Animal Services. When you consider that 3 - 5 purebreds, an unknown number of mongrels and an additional dozen or so unrelated purebreds are often called 'pit bulls' by the public, you realize how small the number really is.
The mongrels called 'pit bulls' by the non dog-savvy public are of unknown origin, unrelated and geographically diverse, so to state that these mongrel dogs would exhibit similar characteristics shows a lack of understanding of the subject.
Aggression, a complex behavioural trait, is learned, not inherited. To save space I won't go into detail, suffice it to say that aggression escalates through practice. This is why inexperienced dog owners are the most likely to have aggressive dogs - they don't spot the patterns which more experienced owners recognize easily and address appropriately.
The shape of dog responsible for the overwhelming majority of bites, attacks and fatal maulings in Canada since 1983 is a popular type of family dog which is rarely mentioned in mainstream news reports. The ratio of this type to 'pit bulls' is 19 : 1 in terms of fatalities - over the past 24 years.
The CDC studies mentioned by a poster above were refuted years ago by the CDC team themselves as breed ID is a major confounder and the importance of the work lies elsewhere, but has been lost in the media 'pit bull' feeding frenzy.
Breed identification is impossible with a mixed breed dog, which is what all these so-called 'pit bulls' are. No one, including veterinarians, CKC judges, animal control officers, or anyone else is legally authorized to subjectively determine the breed of a dog or the ancestry of a mixed breed dog. It can't be done. There is no objective test available which will confirm the 'breeds' contributing to a mongrel's makeup.
A CKC judge will assess dogs purported through pedigree to be of a certain breed in the show ring for a fee. No judge I know would ever try to definitively identify a dog outside the ring - they would lose their licence.
The only proof of a dog's ancestry is a legitimate pedigree/registration certificate from a credible registry such as the CKC, AKC, UKC or ADBA. Period.
As for comments about never seeing attacks by other shapes of dogs in the media, that statement is correct. There is no percentage in their running stories about the GSD who put a kid into a coma, the BC who tore a kid's face open, the JRT who did the same, the Lab who left a kid needing over 200 stitches in his face (on the same day that the headlines related to a 'pit bull' who killed another dog), the GR who attacked a kid out of the blue at a birthday party and put him in the hospital, just to give a few examples of incidents which took place in Ontario over the past 2-1/2 years.
It happens. It happens rarely, as do all bites needing attention, attacks and fatalities. In Canada, on average, there is one dog bite-related fatality per year and a handful of serious biting incidents. In Ontario alone, in the last five weeks of 2006 there were 43 traffic-related fatalities.
Despite the fact that the information being relayed about dogs and dog behaviour is largely inaccurate there is another reason why these kinds of laws are opposed by rational people.
The reasons actually have little to do with dogs.
Only the media and the general public think the issue is about dogs.
In Ontario today we have warrantless entry into any building including a private residence, search and seizure without due process in public, presumption of guilt, the burden of proving the impossible (an unregistered dog's 'breed') put onto a defendant, restrictions on mobility, vague and subjectively interpreted (and enforced) legislation and more.
These new regulations affect dog owners of ALL breeds in the province.
That's actually what the fuss is about and why the law is being challenged in court.
The focus on the dogs themselves is a deliberate distraction perpetrated by those who can increase advertising revenue by increasing audience share and those who wish to be seen to be doing something in the face of declining support among the electorate.
Welcome to Ontari-scari-ario.
Labs and retreivers bite way more kids than pit bulls do but they're nice looking dogs with great reputations, so nobody cares.
When a kid gets bitten by a dog, 99.9% of the time it's the kid's fault.
Selma - can you cite the sources of your information please?
"The mongrels called 'pit bulls' by the non dog-savvy public are of unknown origin, unrelated and geographically diverse, so to state that these mongrel dogs would exhibit similar characteristics shows a lack of understanding of the subject."
No, you misunderstand the subject.
Under the Ontario law, the definition of "pit bull" includes
"a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a member of a class of dogs that have an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); ("pit-bull")"
Whether or not you favour such a broad definition, it renders the number of "pure-bred" attacks completely irrelevant for the purposes of the discussion. The point is that "pit bulls" as commonly defined, including dogs not AKC/CKC registered, are responsible for more, and more serious, attacks proportionate to their numbers than other dogs.
As to car crashes causing far more fatalities than dog attacks, that really has nothing to do with anything. It's quite rare for kids to drink Clorox but that doesn't mean we should get rid of child-proof caps.
And increasing ad revenues? With stories about pit bulls? Uh - uh ... that's what celebrity gossip is for.
Marmaduke, what experience do you have personally with these dogs?
When I was younger, I was bitten in the face by a labrador retriever, receiving two nice puncture wounds in my top lip and lots of ugly swelling. The irony is that I got bitten because I approached the dog to tell a little girl I knew not to try and play with it because it was a very hot day, the dog was panting and growling, and it was tied to a post by an overly-short lead.
When I bent down to talk to the little girl, up jumped the dog. It wasn't the dog's fault at all. If anything, it was the owner for leaving it unsupervised in a public place and the leash tied too short for the dog to turn around. Plus, the dog was growling and baring its teeth, which dogs always do before biting and should be considered fair warning to stay away from it.
If there's any kind of behaviour that is predictible, it's dog behaviour. Dogs do nothing but give-off signals, and humans (especially pet owners) have the responsibility to understand how to properly deal with animals if we're going to own them.
Unfortunately for Pits, Dobermans and Rottweilers, they attract an unsavoury, posteuring segment of our population that use them as weapons (or perceived weapons). Chow Chows are also very aggressive breeds and difficult to socialize (particularly around children and other dogs), but they're cute and fluffy so their tendencies go unnoticed.
Uh... your salt comment in the first paragraph seems designed to attract sympathy, but is actually way off base.
I have two dogs, neither of which feel the need to stop and lick their feet while on a walk in this weather. Dogs that are muzzled shouldn't need to either.
In fact, responsible dog owners who find salt to be an issue have the option of buying dog boots. And every dog owner who walks a dog barefoot in this weather needs to be wiping their dogs' feet when they get back from their walk. Road salt can be quite toxic to dogs if ingested.
It's hard to take the rest of your article seriously when your opener is so wrong.
I've been bit pretty hard twice by dogs -- once when I was 10, the dog was off leash and for absolutely no reason ran at me and bit me in the ass. The owner tried to give me $20 to keep me quiet and not tell on him. Of course, I took the $20 then ratted him out. The second time by a Great Dane at my best friend's house, again for absolutely no reason...I was walking by him and next thing you know, I have puncture wounds in my hand.
These two dog breeds have completely different temperments. My father owned a Great Dane for ages, and my two very little sisters climbed all over him all the time...he was the gentlest dog ever. So was the Dane that bit me, actually. I can't speak for the temperment of the Rottweiler, since I didn't really know the dog, but for it to come running up to me and biting me for no reason is questionable. However, my point is that no matter what the breed and upbringing of the dog, animals are just plain unpredictable. I still love dogs, but am extremely weary of going near one now until I observe it for awhile...which is how it should be.
I'm very conflicted about this law, based on my personal experiences and ignoring stats. I also feel strongly that dogs should be allowed off leash in appropriate places, like parks (dogs need to run), but always be kept leashed on sidewalks and most other public places where there's much more traffic.
Btw, Marc, my family had 3 Chow Chows (at the same time) while I was growing up in London, and they were nothing but well-behaved around us kids and our friends. However, I have seen another Chow attack someone, and when they lock that jaw onto something, they're not letting go!
My experience with these type of dogs has been limited to a few casual but cordial encounters, and an incident where my wife was walking a friend's elderly husky, when they were victims of a serious unprovoked attack by two pit bull type dogs (she couldn't be sure if there were pure-bred as they declined to show their papers). Incidentally, although the case eventually went to court, nothing was ever done beyond a stern admonition to the owners that they were on notice - I don't think they were even required to pay for the vet bills.
However, I'm not a big fan of the anecdotal rationale for legal decision-making, even when it's my anecdote. I'm not disputing that the vast majority of the dogs may well be loyal and pleasant and make excellent pets. However, statistics seem to bear out that they are more dangerous than other popular breeds. I absolutely agree with Marc that in some measure it can be attributed to the fact that they tend to attract owners who acquire them for their perceived danger factor, which can lead to poor training and bad behaviour. I also think that dog which are bred to fight for generations tend to do so. Neither of these factors are the dogs' fault, but they need to be dealt with regardless, preferably before an attack and not afterwards.
Noone is dragging dogs out of houses and shooting them in the street. To take any action at all requires a warrant from a JP, unless there is an immediate threat to human life.
All laws are about tradeoffs, and I just don't think that limitations on a specific type of dog are unreasonable.
I think it's irresponsible for owners of very strong breeds not to acknowledge that, while their dogs may not be particularly more likely to attack, the damages resulting from an attack or bite can be substantially more severe. Perhaps the same goes for fluffy Chow Chows, because they also are a box-headed bread and look very much like pits when shaved down.
Pits and Dobermans and Rottweilers were bred specifically to be guard/watch dogs just as teacup chihuahuas were bred to be docile, quivering, neurotic lap dogs. Owners must enact means of control over their animal appropriate to the breed. If you have a pit bull -- which are chunks of solid muscle with devastating jaw pressure -- the obedience training, leash, collar, and strength of the owner need to be scaled properly. If you find that your dog is overly protective or doesn't get along with other dogs or children, you don't let them be around those elements without very, very specific control.
As for letting them run in parks, the same rules apply for responsibility. The fact that so many people allow their dogs to run free in the city, including in clearly prohibited fenced areas like school playgrounds at night, shows that lots of people are not fulfilling their responsibilities to others. And pick up your dog's shit.
I've been frantically chased by two Dobermans who were bred by a neighbour as attack dogs, and whom had slipped their chain link pens. Though it seems unprovoked, it's entirely characteristic of what they were taught to do by their human. As I mentioned previously, dogs always give very clear signals and behave in predictible ways, even if it seems unpredictible or if those signals aren't well-interpreted by humans.
Other people's right to be left-alone by your dog supercede any right you have to own a dog. If you decide to own a strong or aggressive breed, you are also accepting additional responsibilities and liabilities (and so you should). They shouldn't be banned, though. Most of them are harmless...kinda like people.
Marmaduke,
Yes, I have references.
I'm getting ready to go to Westminster in New York, leaving today, so I don't have much time but here are a few places you can look.
I'm not sure if html addys are acceptable here, so I'll do it the old-fashioned way.
caveat.blogware.com - lots of info there check out the sidebar links too (no 'www')
This post links to the testimony of Dr G Goeree from Kitchener at the Ontario Committee hearings:
caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/15/1676422.html
Link on right sidebar 'pit bull' ban in Hansard takes you to the whole thing, the bill, the testimony, the clause-by-clause voting, etc.
Death Stats here (needs to be updated):
caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/12/19/1461082.html
Interview with self-styled expert, Alan Beck from Purdue:
caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/11/11/2492133.html
Here's a link to some TO AC info
www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/torontorecommendations.html
An excellent website to check out:
www.goodpooch.com
Another:
chicobandido.blogspot.com/
The CDC fatality studies are seriously flawed for several reasons. The research team agrees.
1. Under 'purebred' they have 'pit bull type'. This is not a breed - 3 - 5 purebreds plus an unknown number of mutts and lookalike purebreds are lumped in together, distorting the numbers. They do the same with 'husky' another non-breed.
2. Under 'crossbred' they have 'pit bull type', various other types and 'mixed breed'. Aren't they all mixed breeds? Furthermore they assume for the sake of the table that mixed breed dogs are indeed crossbred - the progeny of two purebreds dogs. This is statistically unlikely.
3. They conducted the study using news reports and where available, death certificates. Bystander descriptions of the dogs were used to define 'breed'.
As an example of the reliability of this approach, in the hearing mentioned in Ursula's post we heard that a vet was shown pictures of 25 purebred dogs unrelated to the bull and terrier types. He testified that he would have identified all the dogs as 'pit bulls'.
4. You often hear in the media that there are 4,000,000 bites per year in the US.
This number was derived from a small cohort telephone survey and news reports. The results of the telephone survey, which used no selection criteria so that even children were questioned, resulted in a total of 6 bites being reported. This number was then extrapolated to come up with the number trumpeted in news reports today.
5. The famous "67% of deaths were caused by 'pit bulls' and 'rottweilers'" meme refers to a one-year study in which the total number of fatalities across the US was 27. The deaths attributed, rightly or wrongly, to two 'breeds' totalled 16. Putting aside the confounder, breed identification, a one-year period is too short to indicate any kind of trend and when the percentage is much higher than the actual number it is always a statistical red flag. Dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) are too statistically rare to study in this way.
6. You may hear people such as Stanley Coren informing everyone that a 'rottweiler' or 'pit bull' has a bite pressure of 2000 psi.
This is incorrect. I corresponded with Dr Coren last summer because I kept seeing this quote attributed to him. He admitted he has no scientific basis for the statement in his correspondence with me. He couldn't - there isn't one.
The only study conducted into bite force (not pressure) was by D Lindner and published in J Vet Dent.
In that study, the highest bite force was recorded as 1394 Newtons. Converted to pound-force, the number is 313 pound-force, which translates to .202 psi.
At this post is an explanation and the refs:
caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/23/2152355.html
7. While we're at it, let's address the 'locking jaw' story.
In the Proceedings of the South Carolina Academy of Science, 1989, is a paper by Dr L Brisbin, now retired. His postdoc conducted a rigorous, objective study into the jaw mechanisms of various types of dogs, including the 'pit bull', using a validated method. The results, published as 'Mechanical Advantage to the Pit Bull Jaw', found absolutely no difference in comparative strength for the size of a dog and absolutely no mechanism for 'locking'. These results remain unrefuted.
8. You may hear about 'endorphin addiction' in certain shapes of dogs. This is based on an article which appeared in the Economist and was also run in N. America around 1990 or 1991. There is no basis for the article, there are no citations, it was just made up. Dr Goeree mentions it in his testimony linked above.
And so on.
Many people confuse the concept of 'breed' with that of 'species', ie, they attribute hard-wired behavioural characteristics to an animal which is genetically identical but comes in different shapes and sizes. This is due to a lack of understanding of what makes a dog a dog, ie, of which behaviours are inheritable and which are not.
All of the facts have been proven fifteen ways to Sunday in Ontario and everywhere else.
The attorney general included the purebreds in his legislation because he needed some sort of benchmark in order to capture the mongrel dogs which people dub 'pit bulls'. That's the only reason.
Dog ownership trends change, which is why banning a breed or purported breed accomplishes nothing. In fact, in Winnipeg bites spiked sharply after their ban was enacted, which is typical everywhere that bans are brought in.
There is absolutely no objective, credible science to support the banning of dogs or breeds.
None.
To remove rights from citizens based on penny-dreadful news reports about an elusive, unidentifiable creature, lobbying by animal rights extremists who wish to outlaw pet ownership and self-serving government officials who play to the gallery is, in my mind, unconscionable.
Now, I really gotta run!
PS
A warrant is NOT required for entry into a building, including a private residence. An officer (police, animal control, deputized citizen or other person) may enter a private dwelling if they 'believe' that a person or domestic animal is being endangered by a dog within. A dog of ANY breed.
They may seize the animal using whatever force is deemed necessary whether the owner is present or not.
Ditto seizure in public. An 'officer' may 'believe' that a person owns a 'pit bull' and has not complied with all the regulations at any time in the past as justification for snatching the dog from its owner and putting that owner through the wringer.
Ditto 'menacing behaviour', again undefined.
When you go to Caveat, scroll down to Clayton Ruby's comments and the link to the recent ruling in Guysborough, Nova Scotia. Justice Stroud found that there is no such breed as a 'pit bull', that there is no proof of the existence of a 'pit bull' and no evidence of its dangerousness.
Go to December, 2005 and read the satirical article, 'Tin Pot Town' which mocks Pembroke Ontario for its bylaw. The bylaw itself is attached.
Finally, keep in mind that dogs are unaffected by legislation. They don't read and don't understand public opinion.
It is dog owners, citizens of Ontario, who are affected.
This law attempts to possibly capture a tiny minority of guilty by criminalizing the innocent.
It is based on fairy tales and political agendae. The most specious aspect of it is that it presumes that the incompetent, scofflaw and crminal will obey the law. By definition, they won't. Only law-abiding citizens are affected by legislation and those citizens are living in fear and have lost faith in the government and the media.
As Clay Ruby said in court in May referring to this breed ban 'It is the installation of terror'.
It is indeed.
The only way to discriminate against people who own living, otherwise universally legal property of a vaguely defined shape is by legislating those people into second-class status.
Sound familiar?
Hmm...I dunno about the "clear warnings" all the time...I got my face bitten (upper lip split in half, still have an ugly scar) last year by some mixed breed humane-society mongrel with doggie mental health issues after being invited to pet him by his owner. the dog moved his head up to bite me so fast i didn't see it coming - and didnt' realize my lip was split open at first because i thought the dog had just given me a bloody nose when he whacked me.
That case was 100% the owner's fault - she said after he did it that she "didn't have time to tell me not to touch his head". WTF? If you have a dog with an untouchable *head*, which of course is also at the height of most children's *hands*, then you don't have a dog that is a suitable pet. The owner should have known better than to have such a crazy assed pet.
I used to live in jane-finch, and LOTS of people there bred pitbulls to fight them. i knew never to approach a pitbull or rottie in that area bc they were intended to be vicious. Again, not their fault, but their owners'.
I've been chased by a scary pit bull-type dog. I've also been bitten by an adorable springer spaniel. And my 10-pound Westie looks sweet and innocent, but if you try and fold laundry or make a bed around her, she'll snap at your hands (she came from a shelter, so I'll never know where she got that from). Any dog can bit, and I don't think it's fair to punish innocent dogs by singling out their breed.
But the worst part of the city's actions is going unnoticed for all the debate about the ban. The city is euthanizing dogs covered by the ban, even though there's a grandfathering clause that protects dogs already in Ontario and even though some of them have no behaviour or health issues. The Humane Society has been requesting that the city turn the dogs over to them, so they can find new homes for the animals, but the city refuses. Ban or no ban, that shouldn't be happening.
I was taking the subway last month and there was a muzzled pitbull lying between its owner's feet. she was a teenage girl who was trying to play the tough girl role and pick up a tough guy sitting across from her. she was bragging about her dog and how its killed other dogs already and how she beats her dog.
you can't ban the stupid owners who are attracted to the pit bull for the dog's muscle and might. but i would rather be attacked by a shnauzer than a pit bull. and since we can't ban owners, perhaps we should ban dogs that can maime and kill.
or, treat them like a weapon and make dog owners register them.
17 years ago my wife and i had a sweet little cross bred dog (yorkie/pomeranian. okay, it was her choice not mine. but it was a sweet dog). she took it to the laundromat one day. kept it on a leash she held the whole time. anyway, there was this old guy down the street who owned two pit bulls (anyone who lived on Withrow Avenue near Logan at that time will know who this man is/was). he walked into the laundromat and one of the dogs, not on a leash, followed in with. as soon as it saw our dog it ran and very quickly sank it's jaws into our dog's back. the time between the dog entering the laundromat and then attacking our dog was barely measurable. our dog had no time to provoke the pit bull even if it had wanted to. this psychotic beast then lifted our dog by it's back and shook it's head violently, shaking our dog back and forth. my ex wife was in shock and was screaming. it took five men who were either in the laundromat or nearby to hold the pit bull down and after much difficulty, forcibly release our dog from it's locked grip. there was fur and blood all over the laundromat. we rushed our dog to the vet. thankfully it survived. the vet told us he was amazed our dog wasn't dead - the pit bull had shaken our dog so violently that his skin had seperated from the bones that held it place. it was weeks before he was released from the vet hospital. he was never the same after that.
so forgive me if i'm all for this ban. the cops wouldn't even do anything at the time because there were no laws to cover an act like this. i've never heard of other breeds doing this kind of thing and while i accept to a degree that much of the blame can probably be placed on the old guy who brought up this animal, it's also been proven that these dogs are inherently vicious. for give my ignorance if this is the case but weren't pit bulls bred for fighting? i'll tell you this. i don't own a gun, but if i did, and a pit bull ever stepped a foot on my property i'd blow the bastard's brains right out of it's skull before i let it get near me, my family or my pets. i've been burned once by one. i'll be damned if i'll let one of family members have to go through an experience like that again.
Probably the ideal solution would be to punish dog owners who mistreat their pets. I completely agree with that. But I'd like to hear from a single person who can come up with an efficient and successful way of enforcing those rules.
Let's hear it.
There's a fairly efficient solution already in place: it's used to punish people who mistreat their kids, wives, and fellow human beings in general. There's no reason why animals should be any different. Is abusing an animal really all that different from abusing a child? You can't tell a lot about a person's personality by how they treat those who are dependent on them.
BH:
Well, your surname is well chosen, but beatniks were known for intelligence and creativity.
Actually, we had a law in place for many years which would have addressed the horrendous incident you describe. It was the Dog Owners' Liability Act.
The problem is, charges were only laid once in the history of the Act.
Lack of enforcement of leashing, licensing and other protocol regulations is the number one contributor to irresponsible dog ownership.
What happened to your pet was shocking, but using one anecdote to generalize about the most popular purebred in the US, the APBT (250,000 registered last year vs 180,000 Labs), the associated purebreds and an unknown number of mixed breed dogs takes subjective thinking to a new extreme.
My friend, who had her face disfigured by a Cocker when she was 12 and needed extensive plastic surgery thereafter, didn't seem to feel the need to launch a vendetta against Cockers - one of the top biters, by the way.
If you have problem owners in your district, keep calling Animal Services until you are satisfied that the problem has been addressed. If they get enough calls, they may rethink their rather apathetic approach to enforcement of local bylaws.