# Pit Bull This !!!!!



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

I’ can’t believe that in the informed world we live in that the issue about the ownership of Pit Bulls still needs to be addressed. 


Ontario’s real smart Attorney General said “"I'm increasingly concerned about pit bulls," Mr. Bryant said afterward. "There's not a day that goes by that I don't get more concerned about pit bulls. But we haven't decided to move forward with a ban at this point. There's no doubt there has to be some restrictions in terms of mobility; the question is really to ban or not to ban, It's a classic question of nature versus nurture: Is it the dog owner or the pit bull?

It’s real simple ban them, so they don’t maim and kill innocent people. If Bryant can’t make up his mind about the owners , ban them to or better yet ship these genetically challenged pond scum off To Iraq for awhile. 

There is no reason that anyone needs to own this malicious beast. Round the pit bulls up put them to sleep and ban them. It’s real simple Mr. Bryant… Now do your job.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I don't think a ban on them would be appropriate. Restrictions ya, but put them to sleep that's just wrong  . I don't own one, I actually own a vicious poodle, but if I had to give her up because of a few incidents, you would have more blood on your hands. 

It's simple, make them wear a muzzle, keep them caged, restict them to rural areas, keep them away from kids and old people but don't ban them. 

What would we do with all of them anyway? Kill them? Set them free? Ship them to Iraq? Come on it's just more wasted tax payers money.









I'd rather the money go towards getting criminals off the streets, maybe preventing some of these damn home invations that seem to be happening more and more. I'm more afraid of getting shot driving under an over pass then I am getting mauled by a pit bull.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

How about arming the pitbulls to cull their owners.....?

Owners should be required to take out insurance on their pets (with relative risk taken into consideration - Shiatsu's: $5 a year!). Owners without insurance could be treated like drivers who are uninsured. This would allow responsible dog owners to care for their particular favourite breed while holding irresponsible owners to account.

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.

Jerry Allen Bradford, 37, was charged with felony animal cruelty, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office said Wednesday. He was being treated at a hospital for a gunshot wound to his wrist.

Bradford said he decided to shoot the three-month-old shepherd-mix dogs in the head because he couldn't find them a home, according to the sheriff's office.

On Monday, Bradford was holding two puppies — one in his arms and another in his left hand — when the dog in his hand wiggled and put its paw on the trigger of the .38-calibre revolver. The gun then discharged, the sheriff's report said.

Deputies found three of the puppies in a shallow grave outside Bradford's home, said Sgt. Ted Roy.

The four others appeared to be in good health and were taken by Escambia County Animal Control, which planned to make them available for adoption.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

“What would we do with all of them anyway? Kill them? 

Yes Sir I would kill them, they are dangerous animals that attack people.I Don’t think that’s a waste of money ...cultural grants now thats a waste of money.

Anybody who owns one, in my mind is irresponsible so insurance is out of the question.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It's as much a problem with the owners as it is with the pit bulls.

Jim, re your suggestion that "Owners should be required to take out insurance on their pets (with relative risk taken into consideration - Shiatsu's: $5 a year!).", we had to take out special homeowners insurance because of the four doxies. So, the house costs us $1100 a year to insure, and the special "doxie rider" clause costs us $13,1313.13.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

There is nothing wrong with pit bulls. The problem lies with the owners and back yard breeders. A responsibly bred and owned pit bull is no more dangerous than any other dog. 

If a dog is trained to be mean and aggressive it will be mean and aggressive. The authorities need to be more strict with the people making them that way. If you ban any dog, all you are doing is validating the fact that they are "mean dogs". Who wants "mean dogs"? Idiots! Banning them will make the retards want them even more or they will move onto the next "big mean dog". There are dogs that can do a lot more damage than a pit bull believe me! Ever heard of a Presa Canario? Look at the 
attention 
these guys got when they killed someone.



> "The exact kind of person who should not have a Presa Canario are now the ones asking about it," said Irina Vyatkin, co-owner of Red Star Kennel in Hudson, Wis. "We have people who want weapons -- not dogs."





> "One just said: 'I want a dog that kills.' "


You want to place the blame on the dogs?

Make it harder for people to own dogs legally and make them take obedience courses. I feel any dog and owner should at least take a basic course. 

I have been trying to find some statistics about dog bites but the only thing I could quickly dig up is this...



> Charlotte-Mecklenburg Animal Control tracks reported dog bites by breed and severity. During fiscal year 2004, the following five breeds bit most often:
> 
> Total Reported Bites / Severe Bites
> 
> ...


I don't see anyone complaining about Labs or Shephards.

The other thing is what do people consider pit bulls? There are many dogs people think are pit bulls. Who would be responsible for drawing the line?

http://www.coldsteelpits.com/coldsteelfindthepitbull.htm 

Banning is not the answer. It is a band aid to make people feel better.

Drunk drivers kill more people than dogs. Shouldn't we ban alchohol or cars?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Charlotte-Mecklenburg Animal Control tracks reported dog bites by breed and severity. During fiscal year 2004, the following five breeds bit most often:
> 
> Total Reported Bites / Severe Bites
> 
> ...


Hey. I don't see Sandra Bernhardt mentioned anywhere in the list of "dogs."
Everyone knows she "bites."


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> Yes Sir I would kill them, they are dangerous animals that attack people.


I've tried many times to type something here that constructively shows how angry I am with this ignorant ridiculous statement. It can't be done without many profanities.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

With your stat's you need to weight them with the number of dogs in the population. 

I have little doubt that there are more retrievers out there than pit bulls...


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

Of course there is but what does that matter? People are getting attacked. Its the same amount of victims isn't it?

If it were up to Stinand all


> dangerous animals that attack people.


would be killed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As a breeder of standard wirehaired dachshunds, who, pound for pound could be more vicious than a pit bull, I totally agree with DG's comment that "There is nothing wrong with pit bulls. The problem lies with the owners and back yard breeders. A responsibly bred and owned pit bull is no more dangerous than any other dog." Well put, Gary.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *"There is nothing wrong with pit bulls. The problem lies with the owners and back yard breeders. A responsibly bred and owned pit bull is no more dangerous than any other dog." *


I'd like to see the stats on the dogs who tore young children's faces off and see if they were "trained to be vicious" or were just house dogs who went berserk. From what I've read in the papers, nothing seems to indicate that these were trained to be atack dogs, they just did it. There appears to be some "loose canon" genes in some of these breeds of dogs. If I were buying a dog, I'd use the same discretion as when I buy a car....how reliable and trustworthy is it by nature? I'd be very much in favour of mandating that any "at risk" breed be muzzled when in public. That wouldn't have done any good for the number of young children who were attacked by the family pet, however. I see no logic in wanting one of these animals.....they don't just bite, they are relentless when they attack. Get a doxie (get 4 doxies), a wheaten, a schoodle, a terrier, whatever, just don't take chances with some innocent person's safety for the sake of owning a "macho dog"


----------



## Ron W (Jan 21, 2002)

While I do like dogs, I believe certain breeds should be banned. The insurance thing sound interesting you cannot put a price on a life. How much would this life be worth?


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1067803057800_54/?hub=Canada

I had a hard time sleeping after hearing that on the news. Who was responsible for the boy? Why were the dogs destroyed? Was it not the dog’s nature? If owners should be held responsible then why is it not happening? For those who do not want bans, please explain to me, logically, why they killed the dogs that did this.

While I do believe there is merit in the statements from Dr.G and Digital_Gary about the owners. I feel is not fair that we should be held responsible, in terms of blood, for the owners of the dogs. If t it is the owners and not the dogs, can we ban most owners of pit pulls and other dangerous breeds? We could then take the dogs and use them in a petting zoo of sorts.

What type of person normally owns a pitbull? Is it an easygoing cat lover that likes to get their face licked? I do not think all pitbull owners are necessarily irresponsible but I would think there would be a negative correlation with a good credit rating.

I do not agree, although I won’t rake him over the coals, with Stinands statement of “there is no reason that anyone needs to own this malicious beast” Of course there is! What of persona?

Is there a psychologist in the house who can give us an explanation?

Ron


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter, inbreeding has caused some of the problems with pit bulls. Disreputable breeders cause more problems and unsuspecting/stupid buyers of these dogs compounds the problem. 

As for doxies, put 4 doxies in with 4 pit bulls, and I would not want to be the owner of the pit bull, unless he or she has a few badgers/wolverines to throw in to the fight to even things out a bit. Luckily, the line breeding that resulted in our four is a strong line of the breed. It resulted in Daisy getting her US and Canadian championship and Rootie with a Canadian championship.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I have numerous friends who have pit bulls (surprise)...and I know each and every one of these animals very well. ALL of them are very protective, but very friendly once they know you. Same goes for Rottweilers. And pretty much every other breed of canine, in my experience.

I like dogs and they like me. Mostly.

The only dog that has ever caused me some worry when I approached is a german shepherd. About half of the shepherds I've known over my lifetime have been prone to sudden and unprovoked attacks....sometimes on people they knew very well.  

Keep the dogs alive. Cull the bad owners.

We'd all be better off that way.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> if they were "trained to be vicious" or were just house dogs who went berserk.


I am sure that some of them were pets that went beserk. The interesting statistic would be how many of them came from responsible breeders and how many came from Joe Dumbass that got a male and female and decided he'd make some cash buy selling the puppies. Just because you have a male and female doesn't mean you should breed them. Dogs should be health and temperament tested before they are bred. 



> If I were buying a dog, I'd use the same discretion as when I buy a car


Good point! Would you rather buy a car from a good dealer so that it came with a guarantee or from some guy who put an add in the paper? You do pay a little more for the guarantee but in most cases, you are better off for it.



> for the sake of owning a "macho dog"


Another problem. The people who want the macho dog are the ones that make them mean. Another reason people should have to go to basic obedience training. There are very subtle signs dogs show that can escalate into major behavioral problems. If you know what to look for, the issues can be corrected before they become a problem. 



> Who was responsible for the boy?


A combination of both owners. an explanation below..




> A police investigation revealed the female Rottweiler kept inside the house was in heat at the time of the attack.
> 
> Sgt. Maj. Bob Gallup of the Hampton, N.B., RCMP said the escalating excitement of the dogs, spurred by the female in heat and the child's fear, may have led to what animal behaviorists call the avalanche effect where the dogs start feeding off their own energy and become progressively more aggressive.


The owner of the unaltered female is partly responsible. The only reason to not have your dogs fixed is if you are a responsible breeder. The fact the female was left running loose in the house while in heat does not show responsible behavior.

As well, the other 3 dogs ( 2 male and 1 female) were owned by a friend who was staying with the family. He is also responsible for the death of this boy. The article doesn't say but I am willing to bet he didn't have his males fixed either. The fact they made a point of saying the female was in heat is a pretty good indication the males were getting quite excited. Combine that with the fact they were in a pack, and you have an accident waiting to happen. Dogs in groups of 3 or more can exhibit pack behavior. Anyone who owns that many dogs needs to be a very good dog trainer.



> Why were the dogs destroyed?


No arguments here. The dogs were not owned by a responsible person and if they were allowed to do this once, the owner and dogs can't be trusted.



> What type of person normally owns a pitbull?


A wide range. 

The people who should own a pitbull are those that want a good family pet. They must also have the time to train and excersise him/her on a regular basis. They must have experience in dog training as pitbulls are strongwilled and require consistent training.

People who shouldn't own pitbulls are those that want a tough guy dog. One that want a mean dog. One who thinks it's funny when their dog growls or barks at their buddy when he walks by the dog eating it's dinner. 

Pitbulls want to please their master. If they think their master wants them to be mean to people or other animals, you can be sure they won't disappoint. 

Pitbulls have been around for a very long time. When do you remember hearing about them? Mainly just in the last decade when some people have figured out that they can be made into mean machines. Unfortunately the media doesn't help matters. Nothing grabs attention like a "Vicious Pitbull Attacks!"
All that does is draw even more attention from the wrong people.

[ September 10, 2004, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Digital_Gary ]


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Digital Gary: you are right - it is a ridiculous statement. 

MacNutt - a man after my own heart...









Pitbulls are one of my favorite breeds. I don't take sh**t from any dog, and I don't let any dog give it to my dogs. A pitter got in one of my Border Collie's face, mounting him and such. My guy took the abuse for a while, and I waited for the pitter's owner to get his dog off mine. Just as I was about to step in, Nik [my dog] explained to the pitter that he didn't like the mounting. I have a strict no fight policy [with 4 male dogs you kinda have to] so I got in the middle. I grabbed both dogs [don't try this at home kids]and told my dog to lie down. I checked the pitter's face for wounds - a speck of blood on his shnoz [long way from his heart], and my dog was scratch free. 

Moral of the story: Dogs are not generally agressive and usually only get into an altercation over status. When the altercation happens it generally sounds worse than it is. 

Bo


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> Dogs are not generally agressive and usually only get into an altercation over status. When the altercation happens it generally sounds worse than it is.


Well put. Not many people understand this!


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

Ooops. Double post. Get me all fired up and the trigger finger gets a little jumpy










Edit: might as well make use of the double post. 
This is the "Find the Pit" website I was originally looking for.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

[ September 10, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Digital_Gary ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ya gotta watch that. Innocent people can get wounded when your trigger finger gets jumpy.









Or so my neighbors keep telling me.

(AAAWWW...whadda THEY know? Most of them are still alive, near as I can tell.)


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

It's not the dogs we have to worry about at all! it's Macnutt's kitty.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I have two kitty's actually. Rescued both of them from the local SPCA a few years ago. They are my two best fuzzy buddies. I just love em to death.  

But you haven't seen the other one yet. She is far more deadly than "Trigger". She doesn't need a high powered rifle to take out her assigned target. She can do it with the weapons that nature gave her, silently, and with deadly accuracy.  

And...two minutes later...she will be curled up in someone's lap. Purring contentedly.  

The purrfect killer.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The worst sight I've seen is a full grown pitbull being walked by a small kid in an urban neighbourhood. There is no way in heck that the kid could control that or any other full size dog. If another dog was being walked by another person, what would happen? Some owners are simply stupid. Unfortunately, the proportion of stupid pit bull owners seems higher than average.... Most dog owners are entirely responsible but a minority are simply dangerous to everyone.

Insurance would at least give some of these idiot owners pause for thought and give cops a legal recourse if there was evidence of lack of control or insurance. We have tags for immunizations, why not mandatory insurance?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here's a thought, JWoodget:

Screw the insurance idea. Why not just implant microchips in both the owners AND their dogs? Matching ones! Just so's we could track them down and waste em with great predjudice, when something terrible happened?

SAY...why not do this for EVERYONE in Canadian society?? It might just eliminate all possibility of unexpected violence from strangers or their dogs!
















Sounds like a GREAT solution! Let's get on it, right away!! Perhaps we could spend...like...a BILLION dollars or so, doing it!?!









But...somehow...I suspect that the very worst of us, and their dogs, would somehow manage to avoid this nationwide program. (Just like they would avoid the insurance.) Which would, effectively, leave us all in pretty much the very same shape that we are right now, wouldn't it?  

Wellll...not _EXACTLY_...we'd all be a BILLION dollars poorer. While not having made one single whit of difference.  

Sort of like the ill-fated Liberal Gun Registry, eh?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Thank you Charlton Heston.









inanimate blunt objects aren't the problem here. A Dog breed with sharp teeth attached to jaws like huge vice grips that have a tendency to attack children, adults and other dogs seems to be what we're talking about. 

My brother is a animal trainer and could very easily handle a Lion, Lemur, hedgehog or some other potentially dangerous animal at his house with his family but common sense dictates there's a law against that. 

The dogs aren't allowed in K-W and they are no longer a problem. What's the alternative... having to licence people and go through a examination to get a pitbull?


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

On the farm we have an Akbash dog. Quite feral and expected to kill. She's a livestock guardian dog. 

People get these dogs as pets. Do we ban the Anatolians, Great Pyrs, Maremmas, and all the other guardian dogs? They are bred to kill and are far more effective at it than the mighty pit bull. 

My border collies can pack quite a whollop. In fact, as a volunteer with Border Collie rescue, one of the main reasons the dogs are surrendered is that they were biting the kids - damned herding instinct gets in the way. Out with the Border Collie. 

Next comes the argument that we no longer have need for the fighting instinct of the Pit bull. Granted this may in fact be accurate, but how many Border Collie owners need a sheepherding dog? How many people with Great Pyrs have need for a livestock guardian animal? The instincts are always still there, however cleverly disguised. 

Dogs are dogs and they just do what they do. When your kids get their faces ripped off, were they challengeing the dog's status? Do you, as parents even know how a dog's status is threatened by kids? Not likely. Let's just ban the dogs, it's easier that way.

WAIT! we have the solution! the insurance thing. 

Macnutt is absolutely right. We, as a society, continually make feeble, albeit VERY expensive attempts, at treating the symptoms of problems. 

I likely wouldn't support the 'insurance' program or the registry program or any other such program designed to 'force' me into some kind of complicity. 

I'm not absolving the dogs or their owners from any responsibility. By and large dogs and their owners are excellent, but there are a few bad nuts. Chalk it up to bad breeding. 

Gun registry? There's a gun registry?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

A ban seems like a simple solution, but there are complexities.

In the UK a municipality banned pit bulls. Then someone appeared with one and was fined. The owner contested the case, saying the dog was not a pit bull. That was 6 years ago and the case is ongoing because no 2 experts agree on whether or not the animal is a pit bull.

The legislation is being revised, the current suggestion being that all dogs over a certain weight must attend obedience classes so they and their owners can be trained. Then every 2 years they have to be re-tested, a ten minute session of "manner assessment".

I have owned all sorts of dogs and believe that much of the dog's behavior comes from the owner, like kids & parents. After the last local attack there was an interview on the radio where a humane society officer argued that a ban was probably not a good answer. More useful would be if the police would take backyard breeding for the purposes of fighting more seriously.

It is this practice that ensures the breeding for aggression. In her view, a ban on a breed would simply mean a move by the dog fighting crowd to alternative breeds.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Having come from a country where all dogs had to be leashed and wear muzzles in public (In cities. In the countryside and on fenced private property muzzles were optional) I'm continually surprised when yet another person gets mauled by a dog here and this simple solution is not even talked about. There really should be a strictly enforced muzzle law. It works.

I'm a strong proponent of muzzles after being attacked by a rottweiler. Whose idiot owner took it to a shopping mall, leashless. That guy should also walk around wearing a sandwich board proclaiming his idiocy, as I don't think that the fine he had to pay was a quite sufficient punishment.

"Urban jungle" is right, with the baboons and their pet hyenas waiting to ambush someone on the way to pick up their groceries. Nevermind the fact that the baboons also don't scoop after their pets.

I'm not so sure that banning would work, as another "evil" breed would quickly pop up. 

iG/<


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> kids are getting their faces ripped off


On the other end; do you know how many people have been saved by pitbulls? Of course not. You never see those stories on the news. Google it, you'll be surprised.



> My brother is a animal trainer and could very easily handle a Lion, Lemur, hedgehog or some other potentially dangerous animal


There is a big difference between a wild animal and one that has been domesticated over the last century or longer.




> I was none too happy to see this pitbull puppy roaming freely around the neigbourhood.


You shouldn't be. Again, back to responsible owners. No dog should be roaming freely in a neighbourhood. I would have been on the phone to the human society no matter what breed it was.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

For Digital Gary and the others than have some reason to thinking that owning a lethal unstable weapon is okay. Going out and allowing people to buy an AK47 because it “saved some people” is that okay? Perhaps we can extend your logic to explosives too? Talk about a ridiculous emotionally charged statement. Try separating your emotion from logic.

Quote all the statistics that you want; dog ownership is an emotional matter that defies objective discussion.

Lets bury the old chestnut “that it’s the owners not the dogs”. Perhaps that’s true but if Pit Bulls where not available, these half wit breeders would not be able to create these monsters from hell.

If you and the rest of the pro Pit Bull crowd are true animal lovers, get another breed, or does your love for the canine breed only extend to these butt ugly maiming machines? In which case I question that you are a true animal lover. 

I see NO reason that any person should be allowed to own something entirely for their own gratification that regularly hurts others. This self indulgent attitude that people have over these and a few other vicious breeds, thinking their needs overrule the safety of others is not ridiculous…. it’s criminal.

[ September 11, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: stinand ]


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> On the other end; do you know how many people have been saved by pitbulls? Of course not.


And this cancels out the attacks?  



> There is a big difference between a wild animal and one that has been domesticated over the last century or longer.


A potentially dangerous animal is a potentially dangerous animal. 



> Again, back to responsible owners. No dog should be roaming freely in a neighbourhood.


Yes but that is always going to happen sometime. There are always going to be instances where a child tries to take away and dogs chew toy. There will always be that other dog coming to check things out. That's just the nature of having pets. The big difference being what harm a pet can inflict should something go awry. 

A bite is one thing.. being mauled and physically and mentally harmed for life is another.  

It's just common sense really.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

> Of course there is but what does that matter? People are getting attacked. Its the same amount of victims isn't it?


I think that knowing the number of dogs of a particular breed vs. how many go "berserk" is quite important when quoting dog bite statistics.

If there are only half as many pit bulls vs. retrievers out there (I suspect it's actually far less than that), but pit bulls are responsible for just as many attacks, then that would tend to favour the argument that they are a dog more prone to biting.

It's like saying that Pontiac Sunfires get stolen more often than Subaru Justys. Duh?!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_It's just common sense really._
Pets and common sense = oxymoron.









•••••

Why do I find it ultimately ironic that time energy and government resources are being devoted to "debate" this "danger" when 100,000 kids in Europe died of environmental factors last year.........and it's going to get worse over time.

Toronto air quality sucks hugely........but the press is full of "pit bulls"









Yeah yeah I know reading the September Nat Geo  but still.............priorities DO seem a tad whacked.
•••••

BTW the cat lovers shouldn't be so smug



> • Migratory Birds
> • Bird Index
> Scientific studies actually show that each year, cats kill hundreds of millions of migratory songbirds. In 1990, researchers estimated that "outdoor" house cats and feral cats were responsible for killing nearly 78 million small mammals and birds annually in the United Kingdom.
> 
> *University of Wisconsin ornithologist, Dr. Santley Temple estimates that 20-150 million songbirds are killed each year by rural cats in Wisconsin alone. *


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I don't know if insurance would work but it wouldn't be difficult since dogs in my province at least have to be registered every year. As a society, the majority accept the concept of responsibility and demand it of others. Transgressors are treated as pariahs.

If everyone was responsible for their actions and the actions of their pets, then such incidents would be significantly reduced. As it stands, there is very little deterrence for owning a pitbull and the simple fact is that this breed (along with others) will be banned unless their owners accept responsibility and muzzle them in public, etc. In the GTA, a recent poll indicated over 80% of people wanted pitbulls banned. Any savvy politician is going to leap on that.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Everyone









I must say I am no fan of this breed.

A family on my street with small children bought one a few years back when my children were just toddlers. I must say I was none too happy to see this pitbull puppy roaming freely around the neigbourhood. I don't think any dog should be doing that for that matter. 
I vowed to my wife if he ever harmed my children, they won't need to call the vet to put him down. The happy day came when he was out on one of his walkabouts of the neigborhood and someone took a shine to him and drove off with him never to be seen again. I must admit it was the first time I was ever happy to see someone get robbed.
Maybe he could have turned out friendlier than Lassie but if this animal had taken a notion to attack my children or me for that matter, I don't like the odds. Its the potential for harm bred into this animal that scares me. Look at the physique of these animals. Those vice-grip like jaws make me a tad nervous.

It could be argued a responsible gun owner could have an automatic assault rifle and never kill a soul, but are we not a whole lot safer keeping that potential for death and destruction out of the publics hands? 

Its not like banning pitbulls means you can't have a pet. There are hundreds of other animals to choose from. Don't get me wrong, I love dogs as much as many of you do but this breed I could live without.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I agree with *iGeek* on the use of muzzles. They are very effective for any breed of dog that is a potential risk. Forget teh ban, implement strict muzzle laws.

My girlfriend's brother had a pit turn on him. A dog that was bought from a supposedly reputable breeder and with documentation. He also had a female who just had a 6 pup litter. He put them all down after the incident. BTW, he lives on a working farm and has much experience with this. He's not an idiot and easily recognised the problem with the breed.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Get rid of them... they're too dangerous. 

Kitchener-Waterloo banned pitbulls, and now we don't have problems with them. Good riddance. 

Defending the dangerous breed makes me laugh. The arguments are all the same. If REALLY trained, they're good. Hey, very few people have died from attacks. The media sensationalizes it. Puh-leaze... kids are geting their faces ripped off and other harmless dogs are being eaten. 3 attacks in the last week in T.O. 

Besies, they're butt friggin ugly.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

"A potentially dangerous animal is a potentially dangerous animal."

Well, shall we ban every dog then? Other breeds attack people too - but they don't make the headlines. Only pitbulls do for some reason.

Wait a minute, some people attack other people too - let's ban people!

If you want to stop the problem, address the source - the owners and the breeders.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Perhaps we should spend a few billion dollars registering all of the "Blunt Instruments" that are out there, as well.









FAR more crimes are committed with "Blunt Instruments" than with guns or Pit Bulls, after all.

The guy behind the counter in the Blunt Instrument Shop told me this very thing, not more than two weeks ago.









He figures that the government might begin to spend billions of tax dollars to register all of the baseball bats and hockey sticks in Canada within the next two years or so. Then they'll work their way down through all of the other blunt instruments, over the next couple of decades.

Eventually, they'll get to the dogs. ALL of them!









Except for one little thing...

The really BAD GUYS won't bother to register or insure their blunt instrumnents. OR their dogs either.  

Ban them? HAH! Good luck!









Handguns are virtually banned in Canada. Have been since the 1930's. 

And how is THAT working out right now? A giant success?









Time to wake up.

Bad people are the real problem. Not the instruments they use to be bad.

Cancel or remove one, and they'll just find another. We'll NEVER catch up with it. No matter how many billions we spend. We'll never even get CLOSE to catching up with this particular problem. EVER.

Until we address the actual source, and start dealing with it from a realistic basis.

Guns, baseball bats, broken beer bottles and pit bulls AREN'T the problem. They're just convenient weapons used by some particularly rotten human individuals.

They're the problem. Not the dogs.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

“Wait a minute, some people attack other people too - let's ban people!“

Hey funny you say that. We call it jail other countries call it the death penalty...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> Well, shall we ban every dog then? Other breeds attack people too - but they don't make the headlines. Only pitbulls do for some reason.


Do they not make the headlines because reporters aren't interested in dog maulings that aren't pit bulls or is it because no other breed has jaws and neck muscles like a pit bull that can cause that kind of damage? In some instances, pitbulls are beat on the head or shot several times before they will release their grip. 

A dog bite from most dogs causes a minor injury. A dog bite from a pit bull can rip someone's arm or face to shreds. Those stories in the papers and the injuries that are caused are not just make believe. 



> Wait a minute, some people attack other people too - let's ban people!


Yeah...er.. if people attack other people we tend to put them in jail. We also don't usually say its just the parents fault either. 

As I said, the problem is fixed in KW. We can move on to other more important issues like clean air.









Kitchener and Waterloo have had no reports of pits bulls attacking people this year, while nearby Cambridge - which has no ban on the breed - has had three.

And did I mention they're butt friggin ugly???










But alas, there will always be bleeding hearts...


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

If you're going to ban a breed of dog because it bites better get rid of Cocker Spaniels. One of the champion 'biting' breeds. 

Compared to other breeds Pitbulls are not some gnawing biting dog that runs around chopping everyone that comes near it. 

A dog, any dog that is properly 'trained' won't just leap out and bite someone becaue they are standing near you. This is like comparing a .22 hand gun to a .44 Mag hand gun. They are both guns, one will just do a whole lot more damage. 

In saying that, they must come up with some sort of plan regarding Pitbulls, and some other 'strong' breeds. But it really is only going to be effective I think if the owners are required to be licensed. It's a tough topic. You can't have just anyone owning these dogs, that is stupid. And I think the idiots that do own them have really proven the 'other' sides case for them. 'Hey, we're idiots. See what we do with these dogs?'

_Anyone know where the Pope stands on this issue??_


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

“You can't have just anyone owning these dogs, that is stupid.“ Quote

An IQ test for dog ownership??? C’mon !!!

The British have made a start with The Dangerous Dog Act 
Dangerous Dog Act 

In my mind it does not go far enough and has no been effectively implmented.

Cocker Spaniels may bite, but they don’t maim like Pit Bulls, a breed that was bred to fight.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

> Why do I find it ultimately ironic that time energy and government resources are being devoted to "debate" this "danger" when 100,000 kids in Europe died of environmental factors last year.........and it's going to get worse over time.


I agree with MacDoc on this one. We tend to only talk about things that are sensational and have shock factor. Just treat dangerous animals like dangerous weapons.

I met and be-friended a girl while I was in Poland who has just successfully fought off Leukemia. Having seen what she has around her and what she is exposed to I only hope that things change.

They are so behind when it comes to environmental protections and restrictions when it comes to hazerdous substances. All I could think is that I want to get her out of there. (And yet the beauty of Poland is what keeps me coming back...)


And by the way... nothing against ehMax's taste in dogs but I find the pic of the pitbull cute. (Although the site of the drool dripping as it barks is a bit different)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

The simple solution is ban them - every city that has, hasn't had a problem since. You can set up restrictions and such, but you won't avoid that dumb owner or the kid that accidentally gets close to one. You don't have to kill the existing ones, just restrict them until they die naturally or get the owners to sell them.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Muzzles are an acceptable compromise in my book. The dogs get to exist - with or without good owners - make it universal - all dogs are to be muzzled... 
The country rules that igeek posted work for me too. 

Let's do it then... 
All in agreement say 'I'


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> And this cancels out the attacks?


No but if people can say that potentially every pitbull can kill someone, why can't I go the other way and say potentially every pitbull can save someone?



> Lets bury the old chestnut “that it’s the owners not the dogs”. Perhaps that’s true but if Pit Bulls where not available, these half wit breeders would not be able to create these monsters from hell.


You won't get rid of them. By banning them, all you are going to do is keep responsible people from owning them. Irresponsible people will keep breeding them. These are the ones that cause the problems.



> There are always going to be instances where a child tries to take away and dogs chew toy. There will always be that other dog coming to check things out.


Better start banning every big dog then. Any untrained dog can have possession issues. A bullmastiff will cause just as much if not more damage than a pitbull.



> Kitchener and Waterloo have had no reports of pits bulls attacking people this year


We'll see. Like I mentioned above, the responsible people can't have them anymore but irresponsible people aren't going to care if they are banned. Sooner or later there will be one escape from the garage it's chained up in. 



> a breed that was bred to fight


Do you have any idea how many breeds were bred to fight? That is a non issue. 



> If you and the rest of the pro Pit Bull crowd are true animal lovers, get another breed, or does your love for the canine breed only extend to these butt ugly maiming machines?


I don't own a pitbull and likely never will. Why? Not because they are dangerous. Not because it will bite my kids face off.
The only reason I would not own a pit is because I could not deal with people like you on a regular basis. I get enough of this kind of attitude with my Boxer. It is very frustrating dealling with dirty looks or people that feel the need to tell me I shouldn't have my pitbull in public. I couldn't imagine the attention an actual pitbull would draw.



> A potentially dangerous animal is a potentially dangerous animal.


I guess I should put my dog down then? Potentially, he could do a lot of damage.



> And did I mention they're butt friggin ugly???


Too each his own I guess. I suppose you are going to tell me my little guy is ugly too?











We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine.

[ September 13, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Digital_Gary ]


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

> I suppose you are going to tell me my little guy is ugly too?


I've got a friend with a Boxer and ugly does come to mind when I look at him. I guess it's a "eye of the beholder" kind of thing... 

He's a great dog, however!

The neighbours have a year and a half old Golden Retriever. Now that's a good looking dog!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *By banning them, all you are going to do is keep responsible people from owning them.*


There are lots of large dog varieties and I like most of them. However, I think that any socially responsible person would stay away from any breed with hair-trigger traits. From anything I've read, you just can't always trust even a well bred and trained pit bull, so why would you want one, especially if there will be contact with young children? Many dogs are intimidated by young children and may nip if provoked too much, but you normally don't worry about the dog trying to maim or kill. The pit bull has a strength of jaw and ferociousness that must be taken seriously. Trying to minimalize that with shallow logic such as "a pit bull could also save lives" is irresponsible. The overall good of society over-rules the desire to own a potentially dangerous breed of dog that will be out in public. The mandatory muzzling suggestion is the best compromise, bit there will still be tragic incidences within the households and back yards, as we've seen in news reports.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Banning them is just a cop out. My friend's parents own a pitbull, and he's a great dog, and they live out in the country. So what, they get banned and then everyone who owns a pitbull has to give them up?? That's just rediculous. You're all just jumping on the boat on this one.. BAN EM!?! You're like an angry mob. Quick fix to a problem, instead of finding a viable solution.

Like a few have mentioned already, MUZZLES! (and leashes for EVERY dog) And VERY stiff fines for people who violate that law. Like, $5000 fine. 

I know 100% that my friend isn't going to give up his dog just because a bunch of quick-fixers decided to ban his dog.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Kloan Outrage as a justification does not work.

No band wagon, no quick fixes. There is no copout at least the “angry mob” is trying to deal with a problem, whereas the “friends of the Pit Bull” are just sticking their head in the sand and excepting the situation. I don’t see the responsible Pit Bull owners getting together to deal with the issue.

Lets look at this objectively. A pet is not contributing anything to society, in the past dogs were working animals. So why should we allow people to own to a non essential item, that has a history of maiming and killing people ? For their self indulgent pleasure ? 


The general population has no problem prohibiting an unlicensed person to have guns, explosives or certain chemicals. BUT as soon as animals are involved it evokes this Neanderthal emotion in many. 


You have no right to endanger me or any member of the public because it pleases you to own an anti social animal. 

I have pets; but I certainly would not consider owning anything that has a very real potential to harm others, but perhaps you are different.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

You missed my point entirely.

I AM concerned with people's safety. There are definately some loose cannons out there, and also a lot of irresponsible owners, and very irresponsible breeders. People are being attacked, as well as other dogs. But, there are also many that aren't attacking, and there are responsible owners. If those dogs were properly leashed and were wearing muzzles, there would be no injuries. The solution is simple.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Who is going to police these laws? We already have enough issues for the police to handle.

Who is going to pay to uphold your regulations? More to the point why should we indulge and pay for Pit Bull owners indulgences ? 

Sorry it’s not that simple.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Pay? You're not paying for anything! You don't think a $5000 fine is enough of a deterant, people are just going to blatantly ignore the law and go about their business as they please? Yeah.. I can see that.. really I can.. how about if there's an attack the owner is jailed for 10 years.. think that'll deter them? Oh, I'm sorry.. the poor police have enough to do.. uh huh, you make a great point.

You're right, screw it. Just ban them and kill everyone's dog that's a pitbull.. great.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

> There is no reason that anyone needs to own this malicious beast. Round the pit bulls up put them to sleep and ban them. It’s real simple Mr. Bryant… Now do your job.


Amen. And psychoanalyze the owners, too. Anyone who would _want_ to own a vicious dog probably has other, more sinister varieties of bats in his belfry as well.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

> Amen. And psychoanalyze the owners, too. Anyone who would want to own a vicious dog probably has other, more sinister varieties of bats in his belfry as well.


Okay that is quite possibly one of the most unintelligent and ignorant things I have ever heard anyone say on this topic.

Are you actually serious here? A properly bred, trained and raised pitbull is not a 'vicious' dog. Good lord man do a little research before making such an asinine statment. 

Does anyone there know you're using the computer?  

I'm sorry if this sounds personal, but come on 'psychoanalyze' people because they choose to own a certain breed. Ya that's well thoughtout.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *A properly bred, trained and raised pitbull is not a 'vicious' dog.*


Since breeding lines can go back quite a ways (probably centuries in this particular breed) and training quality can be subjective, how is one to know that any given dog is without temper? I've seen many purebred dogs come from the same breeder and still have different personalities and temperment. Like a child, you don't know their true personality until they mature. Even the best raised kids can have serious problems, so how can you be sure of a dog that that is of a breed having a history of random unreliability and a jaw-like a vise. I've been bitten by a german shepherd and a labrador, but neither was serious....they backed off after getting their point accross. I wouldn't have wanted to be the victim of a pitbull in the same situation.  
Got a pitbull?....keep it away from kids and other dogs unless it's muzzled!
It's interesting that if a car manufacturer discovers a potential area of malfunction with their cars, they have to issue a recall. Very few of these recalled models have a very high incidence of dangerous results, but the makers are forced to err on the side of caution. If the problems were to persist, we would tend not to buy this model, yet we have people who CANNOT guarantee the behaviour of a known dangerous breed defending how wonderful a choice these dogs are. Anyone here want to buy a good, safe, reliable Pinto? How about some good Firestone ATs on your Bronco? They're oximorons, folks! 



> *Okay that is quite possibly one of the most unintelligent and ignorant things I have ever heard anyone say on this topic.
> *


That alone is a questionable assertion. You have no domain over intelligence or freedom of thought, my dear. There is strong public and legal debate in favour of controlling this breed of dog and it's worth open discussion. These are potentially free-thinking weapons.....good breeding or training is no guarantee, in my observation.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> There is strong public and legal debate in favour of controlling this breed of dog and it's worth open discussion. These are potentially free-thinking weapons.....good breeding or training is no guarantee, in my observation.


Controlling the breed is one thing, eliminating it is another thing entirely. I agree that they are potentially dangerous weapons, and will dontinue to be when they are in the wrong hands. There will always be dangerous breeds. Muzzle all dogs when in public, I have 4 Border Colies, I would muzzle them all. 

I don't support euthanising them. Training them, while a good theory , won't happen fromthe irresponsible jerks that give the breed a bad name.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_my dear_

Hey G doesn't being patronized make you go all warm and fuzzy.  

•••••

Slap a mandatory 1 million dollar liability insurance on pitbull owners - no insurance, no dog. THAT should be effective.



> Nationally dog attacks have cost the insurance industry about $310 million a year, which accounts for about one-third of homeowner liability claims.
> 
> The cost of dog related injuries in California was $12-13 million in the year 2001.
> 
> ...


That's in the US ..wonder what it is here.
Just add a hefty fine for a pit bull off leash or without a muzzle and you can bet would be owners will think thrice.

This is NOT reassuring



> The number of dogs. Approximately 35 percent of American households owned a dog in 1994, and the US dog population exceeded 52 million. (Wise JK, Yang JJ. Dog and cat ownership, 1991-1998. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;204:1166-7.)
> 
> The number of victims. A survey by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta ("CDC") concludes that dogs bite nearly 2% of the U.S. population -- more than 4.7 million people annually. (Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a problem? Injury Prev 1996;2:52-4.) Almost 800,000 bites per year -- one out of every 6 -- are serious enough to require medical attention. Dog bites send nearly 334,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (914 per day). (National Center for Health Statistics National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for 1992-1994.) Bites to children represent more than 50 percent of the total number cases. 26% of child-victims -- compared with 12% of the adults -- require medical care. (Ibid.) Getting bitten by a dog is the second most frequent cause of injury to children. (Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emegency departments," JAMA 1998;279:53.) Every year 2,851 letter carriers are bitten. (US Postal Service.) An American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog each year. (CDC.)
> 
> ...


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

“Okay that is quite possibly one of the most unintelligent and ignorant things I have ever heard anyone say on this topic.”

Okay seeing as you have set yourself up as the purveyor of knowledge on this subject. Please explain to me why a person would want to own a breed of dog that has this history.

Pit Bull History 

After reading this you may realize that the pit Bulls was bred and cross bred to be the “ ultimate canine gladiator “ . Seems like a pretty anti social animal whose actions are in it’s genes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Andy you should talk about dangerous animals......that pet of yours even bites you.

"Polly want a finger..........."


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Another attempt at humor??









Funnily enough he/she/it was shipped out this weekend..


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> _ macdoc_The scene of attack is home or a familiar place. The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.


Exactly, that only makes sense - canids only tend to fight when their status is threatened - when they are in unfamiliar territory they have no status, so they don't fight. 

They fight to gain or protect their status in the pack. They view their humans as their pack. Often the canid is the alpha member of the household. Imagine what will happen when a child decides to play horsie with the family pet. This is perceived as sexual behavior by the canid - aka a threat to the canid's status. [note: even if the canid is NOT the alpha member of the family, the dog generally perceives him/herself as having higher status than the children in the family - for obvious reasons]. The dog WILL defend it's status when jr decides to play horsie. It's just a matter of temperament at that point. What will the dog do? How severely will he/she correct junior? How many times has junior done this before with only a warning? 

This breed, along with many other breeds are capapble of inflicting terrible damage. So are humans. Deciding to eliminate the breed is not the answer - THAT kind of thinking does seem a little unintelligent - doncha think?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I agree with the $5000 hefty fine, but in a different context.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There are exotic animal bans - particularly animals like cougars, lions, tigers for a variety of reasons one of which is danger to owners and public.
Can't see much difference.

If I drive a car that is prone to causing expensive damage I get dinged big time for the privilege of continuing to drive.
Eventually, like 3 wheeled ATVs the vehicle gets banned entirely.

Like Andy's psychopathic parrot.

Common weal eh.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

Cocker Spaniels generally have one of the highest bite frequencies of all dogs. I can't remember but one or the other, black or champagne is much more likely to bite than the other.

So given this breeds history why one earth would anyone ever want one of these dogs? Compared to Pitbulls they're like Tasmanian Devils.  

The statement was ignorant because it was. It's akin to saying that all people 60 years of age should have their DL's taken away because statistics show they have much slower reflexes and would be more likely be involved in an accident.

If all Pitbulls are vicious and weapons how do you explain the ones that have never biten anyone and live until death in families with kids, cats etc?

This thread is really quite pointless, much like..., well you know.

I agree there is a problem with the ownership of Pitbulls. As much as I think that owners are a huge part of the problem I would never suggest that all people that choose to own the breed are somehow in need of mental and psychological help.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> This thread is really quite pointless, much like..., well you know.


zactly. 
I'm done here... 
next?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

It’s amazing that the pro bulls people find the discussion pointless, that’s just the point. 

A cocker spaniel comparison now rates as the most ridiculous part of this thread. When was the last time you heard of the Police having to shoot a spaniel to get it to release it’s victim?


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/dogbiteepidemic.htm

An article by Jean Donaldson ...


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## anal-log (Feb 22, 2003)

Here's an attack that just happened this Saturday in False Creek.
Vancouver Sun


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

If you read the article it says it was a pit bull cross. So now what percentage of pit bull does the dog have be in order for it to be banned? And why isn't the cross part named? Why isn't it a cross of the breed that they didn't list? If the dog was muzzled would this had happened? Why go straight for the ban? While we're at it lets pull out the pitch forks







.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Boy, talk about pit bulls! I'm going to get a rabies shot!

Cheers :-> Bill


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

After re-reading the link ehMax posted, maybe a ban isn't such a bad thing.



> What is a Pit Bull?
> A Pit Bull dog is defined as a dog of any age identifiable by the Humane Society as any one of the following breeds or mixed breeds:
> 
> Pit Bull Terrier;
> ...


Technically, they aren't banning them. A Staffordshire Bull and American Staffordshire terrier that is registered with the AKC or CKC is allowed. The CKC should recognise the American Pitbull Terrier as well and add them to the list. Typically, as mentioned numerous times earlier, the problem is with irresponsible breeders and owners. Any breeder doing the proper testing and going through the proper registration procedure can still breed and sell the pups and people can still legally own them. Usually, the back yard breeders do not do this. Typically, responsible breeders are not going to sell their dogs to anyone that walks in off the street. They love their dogs and make sure they go to suitable homes. 

If this is the case and I am understanding it properly, I think this type of ban is exactly what is needed.

[ September 14, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Digital_Gary ]


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## anal-log (Feb 22, 2003)

*And how many people were injured in vehicle accidents in the same amount of time?* 
Probably ZERO where the owner of the vehicle was not around.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

The comparison between other “problems or issues “ is a very old chestnut e.g. There are starving children in the world, so why give cultural grants ? 

Admittedly there are much more pressing issues that pit bulls negatively effecting our lives, but where do you start? Don’t we just take them one by one? It’s nice to think that somebody in power would come out with a top ten “problems that need to fixed” and we would all work on them diligently in order till we had them beat….But the world don’t work that way. 

When I started this thread I was interested in why such a seemingly simple problem could not be solved ….Just ban the breed. Along the way I’ve learned that it’s not such a simple problem, if one wants to consider all sides, no matter how emotional based many are.

The answer to the Pit Bull issue is probably the middle view of all these posts. Having said that why in hells name don’t the politicians at least legislate the middle view?


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

because they have to spend as much tax dollars as possible on studying the issue before they make their decision..


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

It seems that we here in Canada are not the only with ones with Doggie Problems
UK Dog Protest


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We have horrible air in the GTA, we are in dire danger of not having enough power down the road and a Provincial Minister has time to go on CBC and have "call in" on pit bulls.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

I haven't read the whole thread(6 pages!? how can one be expected to?) Yet, why do we not own tigers? Lions? There has been, believe it or not, a huge problem with owners of Mountain Lions in this country-- caught and made pets. now, they are predatory creatures by nature, yet, their nature is supposedly "nurtured" right out of tem-- cuddly lil' sons-o'-bitches. Then they attack the first kid they come across. Some like to argue for the ownership of predatory-- biologically speaking: muscular jaws, etc.-- dogs. Why not own bears. Tigers. etc. If its all a matter of training, why not own a gd elephant?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Sha na na na... sha na na na... hey hey hey....









No more dogs with jaws of steel.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

More of a metaphor that I think aptly illustrates how silly some of the rules have become. Or are becoming.

Space is the next frontier. Once it is opened up, and we have some sort of colonization effort in progress...I suspect that the very same gene pool that was eager to get to this particular continent a few hundred years back, will be itching for a shot at something new and different.

And a bit less stifling.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

I agree with the "slippery slope" statement in the linked article about the Ontario ban. This doesn't fix the root of the problem - bad or stupid owners. These people will just get another breed and ruin its reputation.

- Martin.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

EX_ACTLY!!_ 

THIS is the point I'm trying to make.

Bad people are the problem. NOT "bad dogs". 

Guns don't kill anyone, until someone picks them up and pulls the trigger. Most dogs can be trained to be "bad" by the wrong owners...but they aren't inherently deadly on their own.

Time to start weeding out the evil among us. And putting the worst of them into a situation where they can't inflict their nastiness upon the rest of us.

Or...we will soon be passing laws that register and outlaw all blunt objects. And pretty much evrything else. Including all breeds of dogs larger than a chiuahaua.

And we will be wrapping ourselves in a nice thick layer of cotton wadding while staying quietly at home each day. For fear of ever being harmed.

(YIKES!!...where's that ejection-seat lever?!?)


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> Ever since that ban, dog attacks have dropped dramatically in Kitchener-Waterloo. However, in Winnipeg, attacks by Rottweilers jumped after the city banned pit bulls.


Time to go after the rotties I guess.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I was under the impression that the ban on smoking in private vehicles were in the instances where children and infants riding with their parent/adult.

Doesn't seem too out there to me... at least it would help children from developing lung-related/asthma problems.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macnutt... time to start putting the tin-foil on your head I guess.









The ban on smoking will be a ban if you smoke with little children in the car. This is based on scientific analysis that smoking in a car with children is many times more potent for a child's health. The ban will also be for homes that are responsible for other kids childcare or daycare. 

This and the pitbull ban having nothing to do with the government telling people what's good for YOU, its making it safe for OTHER people.

If there are any other breeds of dogs that are as capable of the kind of destruction that a pit bull is, I'd be all for getting rid of the option of having them as pets in public places. If there were repeated incidents worldwide of any pet ripping off a persons arm or side of their face I'd be all for getting rid of them. 

I applaud the governor general's decision. 










Its common sense. People who think they can come up with legislation to prevent "bad people" from getting a hold of "good dogs" probably think there's an effective way to prevent "bad parents" from having children. The time and money to even attempt to legislate who could or couldn't own a pitbull would be so enormous and worthless for a stupid looking dog. 

Reports are that many other provinces will quickly follow suit.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Guns don't kill anyone, until someone picks them up and pulls the trigger.


I love this analogy, but THEY still manufacture handguns .. why? 



> Most dogs can be trained to be "bad" by the wrong owners...but they aren't inherently deadly on their own.


Gonna hafta disagree ... trained dogs aren't bad/deadly. Poorly bred dogs are. It's the lunkheads who buy these poorly bred dogs and then simply encourage the bad behaviour [I guess this is a form of training] It's the training that controls the aggressive behaviour... that and neutering, I'm not sure why people insist on having Pitbulls with testicles - Oh right --> they WANT an agressive dog. 



> Time to start weeding out the evil among us. And putting the worst of them into a situation where they can't inflict their nastiness upon the rest of us.


I have been working out the details of a fairly efficient culling program that should help with this.  



> Or...we will soon be passing laws that register and outlaw all blunt objects. And pretty much evrything else. Including all breeds of dogs larger than a chiuahaua


My dogs are bred to bite - part of their job... bite cattle on the legs, bite sheep on the face -- they do it to kids too if the dogs think that the kids are out of control. Uh oh... 
better hide all border collies, they're next after the rotties.. I'm sure of it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I agree with the notion that not all dogs (or breeds) are bad, but they can most certainly be born with a nasty disposition regardless of upbringing.

My minidoxie Capt. Jack has a real nasty side to him... every time he gets a chance, he'll tear apart any kleenex that looks at him cock-eyed without remorse. We can't stop him... he's an animal.  


...


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> This is based on scientific analysis that smoking in a car with children is many times more potent for a child's health.


This may be true, but when did it become ok for the government to tell us how to raise our children?
What's next? They tell us that our kids can't have candy because I am pretty sure there is some scientific evidence that candy is bad for them too. 

Now, I'm not saying that it is OK to smoke at all, but if I do smoke and I think it's ok for me and my children why should the government be allowed to tell me that I can't smoke with my kids in the car? 
Right or wrong, it is my decision as a parent. Next they'll be telling me what books are good for my kids to read, what parts of a museum they can and can't go into. 

Where IS that ejection button anyway - get outta my way macnutt.. I'm comin' too !!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MannyP, yes, Capt.Jack looks like a killer. Of course, he was not bred to hunt badgers and wolverines. Still, I would not want to be a cross-eyed Kleenex anywhere in his vacinity.

Here is a pic of Rootie teaching our Jack, when he was a pup, how to guard the stairs leading up to our bedroom. The "You shall not pass!!", spoken by Gandalf, would have been successful had he a doxie on their trip.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2693869.html


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Too cute... er, I mean menacing.  

Reminds me of the bridge keeper in Monty Python's search for the Holy Grail. _Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see._.

_What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?_


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MannyP, laugh if you will, but a week of Doxie Training for Capt.Jack would turn him into a certified trained killer. Trust me on this one.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?


An African or European swallow? 

After watching my neighbor encourage his 2 pitbulls to play tug of war with a tire while growling and barking at each other, I am starting to see the benefits of a ban. 

I just hope that it is the same type that Kitchener-Waterloo has. Responsible breeders of American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are still allowed to breed and sell their dogs as long as they are registered with the CKC or AKC. As I said before, most if not all of responsible breeders care about what kind of life their dogs will lead and usually have the same feelings towards the meat heads wanting viscous dogs we do. Therfore, hopefully only the responsible owners will have access to them. 

The only thing that upsets me is wondering what breed will be the next to be ruined?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?


What European or African?

Now back to the dog problem, I can see the domino effect now today Pitbulls(even tough the CKC does not recognize the Pitbull as a breed) next time if its a German Shepherd that mauls somebody they will be branded as a dangerous breed and outlawed as well. Any breed can be trained to be a ruthless killer even Dr. G`s cute Doxies, when I was 8 I had 3 German Shepherds in Portugal 2 would always accompany me to school , one day a man in his early 30`s drunk approached me and started to go for my throat the 2 German Shepherds jumped the guy an nearly killed him, the 2 Shepherds were trained to do this. My wife and I were walking my brothers Golden Lab(Rockie) a few months ago and stopped at the 7/11 on the way back home she was standing outside waiting for me with Rockie and a stranger starts to approach the 2 of them when the guy got to close for Rockie he jumped the guy for his throat he would have killed him too if my wife didn`t have Rockie on a leash. Any dog can be dangerous my 2 Shepherd were angels around me and my brothers dog Rockie is a great help around kids a better dog even I couldn`t ask for. 

I would also like to know who`s going to sit down and figure out what breed attributes makes up a Pitbull? since CKC doesn`t have any set breed for a Pitbull this new law will affect not one breed but probably several.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Certain breeds of dog are "bad" eh?

Hmmmm...isn't Ontario also in the process of outlawing smoking in private automobiles? The same news article said that the Ontario Government wasn't actually going to outlaw smoking in private homes...at least, not just YET!







 

Don't you just love it when the government tells you what is good for you? What kind of dog you are allowed to have? What colour you can paint your house? What to eat and what not to eat? Maybe even what to say and think...in order not to disturb or offend any of the quiet drones who surround you? This is "necessary", after all....just to be a good upstanding citizen that doesn't mess up the carefully crafted social order of our modern co-operative society? Wouldn't want to rock the boat. Wouldn't want that pioneer individuality to rear it's ugly head now that we've tamed the land, eh?

Let's all be quite little sheep, and do just what we are told to do.

Oh...gag me with a piece of lightly steamed TOFU!







  PEEE-YOOOOK!!!   

If it ever gets that bad around here, I'll be reaching down for that black and yelllow striped ejection-seat lever, right quick!

I'll punch out...and take my chances with whatever is on the outside of the snug canopy.

It's BOUND to be better that what's on the inside.  

No question about it. None at all.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I'll punch out...and take my chances with whatever is on the outside of the snug canopy.


wow macnutt. that's almost like poetry. so let me get this straight. if pit bulls are banned on salt spring island you will launch yourself into outer space? too cool!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

K_OS, re you comment that "Any breed can be trained to be a ruthless killer even Dr. G`s cute Doxies", here is a pic of graduation day for the doxies. The woman survived, luckily.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2538039.html

Owners need to be able to not only control their dog, but to train their dogs.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

CKC recognition? Border Collies aren't recognized by the CKC. Why? About 20 or so years ago a group of people decided that a border collie is a border collie regardless of what it looks like. Long hair, short hair, tall, short. If they do the job, then you have a good dog. The CKC [and other conformation associations] are determined to encourage people to eliminate the working ability of any breed. This group of people started a club called the Canadian border Collie club. 
There is a registry for purebred border Collies, just not the CKC. 

Of my border collies - 1 is nearly 30 pounds with short hair - I have posted his pic here a few times. 
Border collie Look at the pic titled: Janice's Boss - That's my Old man .. see how long his hair is? extreme coated dog - works low to the ground . very gross when the barnyard is wet. 

My point is that the CKC should not be the almighty registry here. What is a breed standard? 


> _USBCC magazine_
> 
> So most breeds involve a Registry and some sort of Standard to organize around. The type of standard implied in the first perception of a breed, above, is the physical appearance standard, but it is certainly not the only one. The Border Collie has been bred to a performance standard, harder for the uninitiated to recognize and understand, but just as exacting as any physical standard. In the words of Eric Halsall, BBC TV commentator and author of Sheepdogs, My Faithful Friends: ". . . the collie has been bred with much more care and expertise than any Crufts show champion."


Breed banning is simply uninformed and destined to fail. 

sigh.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Bobeep, while the Border Collie might not be a recognized breed by the CKC (standard wirehaired dachshunds are), the BC usually wins the obedience trials at the dog shows that we attend when we show our doxies. They are VERY smart dogs, far smarter than the doxie, or even the Old English Sheepdog that I once owned and loved.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

There are many breeds that are classified as pitbulls.

American Pitbull Terrier 
( Not recognised by CKC)

American Stafforshire Terrier 

Staffordshire Bull Terrier 

These are also sometimes confused with pitbulls.

American Bulldog 

Bull Terrier 

Boxer 

There are many more unpopular dogs as well that get grouped into pitbull type dogs as well. Too many to list in fact


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Responsible breeders of American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are still allowed to breed and sell their dogs as long as they are registered with the CKC or AKC.


My rant was based on this statement. What does registration with the CKC have to do with anything? 

I use the Border Collie as an example for a couple of reasons. First because I have them, use them and love them. 
Second, because they DO bite, are KNOWN to bite and are NOT registered with the CKC, and only recently in the AKC - 1995 I believe, and open registration with the AKC will end in 2006. 

If a breed that is KNOWN to bite and is not registered with the CKC should be banned, then the Border Collie fits those parameters. For some reason people seem to think it's ludicrous to ban a border collie. 
I have known Border collies to cause significant damage to a human and I have seen them kill sheep. In fact when you enter a sheepdog competition you sign a document agreeing to pay for any killed livestock - if killing something isn't construed as vicious then what is?


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

What it is doing is making breeders pay to register their dogs.
Most dim wits trying to breed mean dogs don't want to to have to pay anything and go through the trouble of registering them.

Also, most responsible breeders who do go through the trouble 
of registering them also pay for health testing since most people buying purebred dogs also want a health guarantee. These tests are not cheap! It also gaurantees that every dog used in a breeding program comes from pure bred stock. Now that doesn't necessarily mean pure bred stock is good stock but again it keeps the guys who has a mean unregistered pure bred or mix dog from breeding to create more mean dogs.


Now to switch back to the other side of the fence....

After reading this article I have to point out that they still don't even know what a pitbull is!



> "I'd like to introduce people who say pit bulls are like any other dog to the mother in Etobicoke who was playing in her backyard with her kids and her pet only to have the neighbouring pit bull knock her fence over and the 150-pound beast charged her kids."


There is no such thing as 150lb pitbull. They do not get that big. neither do American Staffordshire Terriers and definitely not Staffordshire Bull Terriers. That dog must have been some sort Mastiff, Mastiff cross or an up and coming pitbull replacement breed like like the Presa Canario.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

DG, you can't imagine how expensive it is to register dogs with the CKC and the AKC. Each of the owners needs to register, and with one of our doxies, there are three owners (e.g., the breeder, my wife and yours truly).


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

Oh I know. The breeder we got my boxer from showed us her bills. We'll have to see the details on the ban once they get published.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

DG, with Daisy both a US and Canadian champion, her pups will go for at least $1000 Canadian. Still, with all of the vet bills to breed a dog, we shall lose money hand over fist. And, should we decide to keep one of the pups, we shall be overrun by doxies.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

What about the X bred dogs? There are responsible people breeding X breeds - which creates the problem that DG is wondering about - how do they define the pitbull? 

That's how we come up with great breeds like the Lurcher... 
My fave: Border Collie X deerhound. 
Rarely seen outside of the UK though. 

Another neat cross: Border Collie X Border Terrier. 
My friend bred a litter of these - needed/wanted one for her flyball team [world champs 1997]. The little thang is a dream of a dog, fast as anything, bites men consistently. 

Oops... that's the terrier in her... wait a minute.. pit bull TERRIER, Staffordshire TERRIER.. hmmm.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

Dr. G. is onto something and I wish pit bulls were not banned in my city or any city for that matter.

I had a pretty good talk with a retired police officer who worked a little with the K-9 unit and who has been studying and reading up on pit bulls and many other dogs for years now. He went on to say that we must go back several hundred years in time to truly understand why pit bulls are the way they are, or any dog for that matter. It all comes down to the way these dogs have been breed in the past. The solution is to take the whole breed of pit bulls and slowly breed them into being nicer dogs, weaning them away from hundreds of years of being breed to have that viciousness inside of them. In theory and over many years of this type of practice you should be able to reverse the damage that has been caused for so long. The only problem is, nobody knows where to start or wants to work on doing something like that.

Everyone is more into banning certain breeds of dogs, or killing them. If you're an owner of a pit bull or german shepherd for example, you must accept the responsibility for how these dogs have been breed over centuries ago. There are a few other natural aggressive behavioral dogs out there that belong to the german shepherd and pit bull group, and until the actual breeding changes for these species of dogs, we will always encounter a problem from time to time.

I see and come across dog owners everyday 5 days a week. The stuff I see is amazing and disgusting to say the least. There are dog owners who own big full size dogs like german shepherds who leave them inside a tiny house all day. They let the dog outside in the tiny back yard to crap everywhere. The owners refuse to pick up the dog crap and so the entire back yard is covered. That dog never gets walked, and so the beginning to aggression already starts with a powerful and big dog that needs constant exercise and lots of room to roam around. I would have to question at least 75% of the population as to why they even own a dog in the cities I visit on a daily basis. I have also witnessed two dogs who are kept in a metal cage on top of a concrete block 6' X 4' X 6' and have to lay in their own crap and piss all day long until perhaps the owners let them out at night? I have gone back a few days later and the dog crap piles are 4 times worse meaning nobody cleans it out on a daily basis. 

I came across a dog owner where their dog was so aggressive that the dog was literally smashing his shoulder into the front window beside the door while showing its teeth, growling and barking while I was at the house. When you took a closer look at the glass window you saw paw scratches made into the glass. The whole time I was there the dog went nuts, not normal at all. The owner was home and refused to come to the door, the owner didn't even try to calm his dog down or show that he was even presence at home. Meanwhile this dog continued to be super aggressive at the front door even though I was by this time in the back yard. When I got back to the front yard and into my truck, the owner finally showed themselves while driving out of the garage in their vehicle. 

Maybe I should write a book on all my findings of dogs and their owners eh?  

I would highly recommend obedience school to every dog owner. Also educate yourselves on the type of breed before you make your purchase of any dog. Ask yourselves if this is the type of dog for our environment. Does this type of breed need tons of exercise or can it just lay around all day inside the house? Do I have time to pick up the dog crap in the back yard when I'm too damn lazy to walk the dog? (This has got to be the number one problem I see every day, lazy freaking dog owners who don't walk their dogs) Oh and also ask yourself, will I have enough time to play with my dog? Also look at the environment for the dog, big house with huge property for the dog to roam around in? Or small house with small back yard? Or god forbid owning a huge german shepherd or st. bernard in an apartment building. 

Owning a dog is like owning a child in my eyes, its a life long companionship one you shouldn't take lightly in the beginning. Educate yourself, become one with the dog and truly understand the dogs needs. Then see if that type of breed is really something that belongs in your family or perhaps another breed might be better?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

U_L, this is where "line breeding" comes into play. My wife researched various dachshund breeders in Canada and the US. There was one line from a breeder in Ottawa which was on the verge of being inbred. She chose a breeder in Chicago. It is more difficult and expensive to buy a doxie in the US, but this line of doxie was full of champions, but not inbred. When she went to get Jack, the breeder offered her Abby as well, since Abby was the runt of the litter and not of breeding quality. We took her to be a companion to Jack, but not to be bred. This is responsible ownership, in my opinion.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2693989.html


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My point was, and is, this...

The thin edge of the wedge is when we abrogate all responsibility from the people who commit these actions. It's just "not their fault" according to the lexicon of the left.

It's the "dogs fault". Or it's the "guns fault", for being there. Or that rock was just sitting there, mocking me...just ASKING to be thrown through that window. "I just couldn't help it, officer! I deserve leniency!!"

So we let them back out again..and they steal another car. Assault another innocent human being. Beat on their wife and kids for the umpteeth time.Train another dog to be bad in order to cover their own inadequate feelings. And then neglect to feed the dog...or let it run free in the neighborhood. Or both.

And the inevitable happens. Once again. BIG surprise.  

What we really need to do is rethink our whole approach to this particular social problem. And recognise that there ARE "bad" people who do bad things. Using whatever is at hand, to do them. Including dogs. And blunt instruments. And guns.

OR, on the other hand...we could just keep on passing new and ever more intrusive laws that restrict ALL of us a little more each and every day. (Except the truly bad guys. They don't seem to be particularly concerned about laws, by their very nature. They'll probably just keep on breaking the rules. Just as they've always done.)

But...Hey! It COULD Work,eh?  

Just a few more laws, and we'd have _UTOPIA_!
















Wouldn't we? Who's WITH me on this? Let's get on it right away!

Start drawing up the new rules! LOTS of them. For almost everything! Manoman...I can't WAIT. This is going to be soooo cool!!









[ October 16, 2004, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

I'm with you.. good plan you have. The more rules we have, the less thinking I'll have to do... and I gotta say, the less thinking I have to do on my own the better. Gawd knows I can't be trusted to do it properly on my own anyway.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It's a sad case really...I feel for the dogs,
In most cases it isn't their fault.

I live in an area where I am surrounded by three schools and
when I have to take my dog out for a walk I have to plan to walk
the dog either before the children start to walk to school or
when they are in school or long after they have left school in the
evening because if I don't I'll have some unsupervised nut bar
kid that will run up to my dog scraring the hell out of it wanting
to pet it.

I think the kids should be on leashes as well as the dogs,
I mean...How many parents are there that actually train their
kids about the dangers of spooking a dog?.

Then there are the kids that like to tease dogs on their way to
school, The poor dog would be in it's side yard while a pair of
malicious kids would come by in the morning and throw things
at the dog, Makes me sick when I see this, Makes me want to...
Nevermind.

In anycase there are two sides to the story and I'm sure that the
public will mostly believe what they want to believe and the dogs
will always be in the wrong.

Dave (A dog owner)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

This is being distributed to all doxie owners on the west coast of North America.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2705948.html


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

I agree with the ban, but I wonder how enforceable it is. 

Who’s going to define what a pit bull is?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Who is going to try and come between a pit bull and its owner???


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

stinand,

Yes as society we can take the selfish and easiest way out and just ban or kill them all together. Problem solved?? NO! Not in a million years.

Wouldn't it be great if we could do the same for humans? A man kills another human, that man then should be shot dead too. Forget jail, forget the courts. Or how about when another person knives another person? Shall we just shoot the person and kill them for wielding a knife around? 

When we as humans get to do the above to each other and walk away without going to jail or getting charged, then lets talk.

We can either take the easy way out, like society wants or we can get educated properly on the subject and start trying proper breeding methods to change these dogs over time. Also include some obedience and perhaps owner responsibility courses for owning a dog. I think dog owners should need to take a course and get certified if you want to own a pit bull or any other dog of that nature.

Stuff like this gets to me, just like we as humans see that it is much easier to kill a bear, wolf, shark, or any animal that attacks a human, instead of looking at what the real cause is and how can we as humans work together with nature. Well I will leave that for another topic of discussion.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

All of these requirements for "pre-ownership dog courses" and licencing sound like great solutions...

Unfortunately...the bad guys won't bother following ANY of them!   

Make a whole bunch of stringent laws preventing handgun ownership (as Canada did, wayyy back in the 1930's) and you SHOULD have pretty much ZERO handgun ownership in this country, seventy-five years later. Right?

And we DO! Amongst the law-abiding public here in Canada.

But the bad guys are still using handguns to kill people any time they like, here in Canada. And they're killing people with illegal handguns at a greater rate, these days, than they did at any time in the past, BTW.

Because...guess WHAT...they DON'T listen to, or OBEY, any of the laws that the rest of us enact! Big Surprise!   

Go ahead...make all the brand new laws you want that might restrict gun ownership or rock useage or that register baseball bats or that restrict pit bull ownership.

Do you REALLY think that the criminal element will obey ANY of these laws or regulations?

Get real.  

What we really need to do is identify the worst elements in our society...the small minority who commit the lions share of the criminal acts...and DEAL with them in some constructive new way to prevent any further activity of this kind. 

Instead of just slapping them on the wrists and saying "bad bad bad" and then letting them go again. And then watching them go on to commit further mayhem in an otherwise free society.

While saying "Gee...who could see THAT coming, eh??"

It's about time that we began to deal with the problem at it's root cause. While trying for a real solution.

Or...we could continue to enact ever more stringent laws and regulations that govern EVERY law-abiding Canadian citizen.

While the truly BAD among us keep on doing whatever the hell they WANT to. And breaking ALL the laws, while knowing that there is not much consequence for doing so. Certainly nothing that lasts for more than a few short years of "easy time", at the worst.

Good plan, eh?

Not in my book.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> K_OS, re you comment that "Any breed can be trained to be a ruthless killer even Dr. G`s cute Doxies", here is a pic of graduation day for the doxies. The woman survived, luckily.
> 
> http://shw.fotopages.com/2538039.html
> 
> Owners need to be able to not only control their dog, but to train their dogs.


Now that`s what I`m talking about  

Dowlaren is onto something as well, education and understanding of animals should start at an early age, I have seen way to many accidents happen when the dog just freaks out when a bunch of kids start runnning to pet a dog and the dog freaks out and the kids don`t respect the dogs space and it comes back to byte them in the end(no pun intended).


----------



## Italianangel (Feb 14, 2005)

*Get Real!!*

You people who post in fear, why not educate yourself outside of TV and newspapers.....get some real education about animals, dogs, breeds of dogs. 

Band aid resolutions are not resolutions, they chain react to new issues. 

You rather have bigger more vicious dogs walking around? Look at what the winnipeg ban has caused? Those bad owners now get other breeds who are now up on number of bites. Deal with those indivuduals. 

Pits are not naturally vicious to people and if you learn more about this 'nanny' breed who takes CARE OF KIDS you would see the ones you hear about are a small fraction of those out there and the ones you hear about are the small fraction of bad ones, the large fraction left are good canine citizens, they are therapy dogs, heros, baby sitters............research unbiasedly and you will see. 

These dogs were used in the later 1800s to fight each other but if you research that, you see htey had to be good with handlers, humans, or they were disqualified from fighting, which is all gambling anyway, and a human choice, not the dogs choice. 

These dogs were originally farm helpers. 

Have you ever owned a dog? A pitbull? you can't know unless and until you do, for these dogs who attacked people and to be this way, you cannot imagine the punishment and abuse they endured to become this way. 

Also know many media stories are not even calling the breed right, many or not pits and they just call htem pits. When was the last time the news could sell a story of another breed biting? That won't sell papers as it is not the 'trend'. 

IF I beat you daily and burn you and pour acid on you and all that, which is what they do to pitties, read in the link I post below, sad reality.....this and worse is done to them, one dog was put on a bbq by his owner........will you not become protective your self? Maybe even crazy? 

Humans are vicous, unpredictabole and kill for fun....now there is breed to ban! Does that sound sensible? Well of course not, just as a dog breed ban is silly. 

Make the bad owners pay dearly not the responsible owners who you don't hear about because thier pits don't do anything wrong, they go about off leash and muzzle free and live then die innocent, never harming a soul and of course this you don't hear about but they exsist and out number the ones who do attack. I know this from experience and can proove all my facts in this post. See some true facts here! http://www3.telus.net/public/a6a24762/Ecosite/pitbullpage.htm 
GET EDUCATED those of you WHO WANT DOGS BANNED and or KILLED. (I edited this sentence for the sake of being polite, originally it was a bit rougher, also edited the post to show paragraphs - in response to troutmaskreplica) 
And to STINAND - Too bad we don't deal with humans the way you want to deal with the dogs....you would be first on my list to euth STINAND.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Italianangel said:


> GET EDUCATED YOU MORONS WHO WANT DOGS BANNED and or KILLED. Too bad we don't deal with humans the way you want to deal with the dogs....you would be first on my list to euth MR KILL THEM ALL.


 Nice, real nice for your first post.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

italian angel,


no one will read your post like that. try breaking it up into paragraphs.


----------



## Italianangel (Feb 14, 2005)

The rude posts against pitbulls are much worse than the FACTS I have posted, I am not here to chat, I am here to advocate for a creature who cannot defend itself and is being prosecuted! I am very offended at MR KILL them ALL (sinand) who posted they should all be killed...........he should watch his words, karma does come around so maybe he SHOULD fear dogs if he feels this way - but in all honesty and seriousness the ignorance is just unbearable, especially when it comes to issues that affect so many good people, and MR KILL THEM ALL who posted this, called STINAND and people like him are the ones we need to fear in our society, not the dogs!


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I am not here to chat, I am here to advocate for a creature who cannot defend itself


your cause would be better served if your posts were readable


----------



## Italianangel (Feb 14, 2005)

If you can read at at a grade 7 level you can make sense of my posts and as of now I have gone back and edited the post since the issue of paragraphs and grammer seems to be more important than the content, so to make sure my content is regarded and read I did go back and edit according to the above suggestion........ 

and kudos to you all who speak up FOR the issues and FOR the dogs! Your posts are awesome and I could not have written it better........well according to mr troutmaskreplica my writing is lacking and I agree, when I get hot I just fire away.........so my bad for that, but those of you who mentioned the many angles this can take and the issues we SHOULD be addressing around this - you are all awesome!!


----------



## nicki69 (Feb 15, 2005)

I don't have any problems reading italianangel's posts. 

I will try to explain this in concise verbiage. Grab a dictionary, if need be:

1. Pit Bulls, in particular, are used and trained to fight by gangmembers. Their use is well documented. Gangbangers and dealers use these animals for fighting and protection. It is quite a sport and a money maker as well. Please see links below.

2. If you ban Pit Bulls, the gangbangers will other dogs for fighting. It's a moneymaker, you know. Plus they enjoy making them "tough" and abusing them. Do you think if you take away the pits they won't have them and/or find other dogs to bait and train?

3. If you are concerned about the aggression of any animals, you need contain the cause not destroy the effect. Control your gang and drug population.

4. Banning one breed is not logical. For all your statisticians, my challenge to you is to run the numbers of all unprovoked assaults in Canada. I'll need the percentage caused by Pit Bulls, dogs in general,.as well as those committed by human males. If human males commit a majority of unprovoked assaults, rapes, murders, etc., then I'll need to know what steps will be taken to ban them from society? Ridiculous? No more than blaming every dog for what a small minority of dogs have done.

5. Since I work in insurance I can tell you the breed that has been documented to bite the most. This would be Retrievers. Why? Because there are more of them kept as pets than any other dogs and the fact is they are approachable. Thus, more dog bites.

I work in Chicago and live in Joliet. I do know that our officers are trained to find gangbangers who keep fighting dogs. You know they steal other pets to bait the fighters. Chicago has officers specifically assigned to dog fighting. Illinois has enacted legislation that BANS all breed discrimination. Again, you need to get rid of your major cause of crime, gangs and drugs. We have 14 year olds carrying guns. It is not logical to blame the dogs that are tortured and made to fight. You know they are beaten until they perform.

Educate yourselves by the following links. 

http://www.anticruelty.org/dog_fighting.html
http://www.chicagoanimalcare.org/fight.htm
http://www.chicagolandtails.com/index.pl/end_dog_fighting
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/brownstein.html


----------



## Italianangel (Feb 14, 2005)

Wow, now am I glad you posted - NICKI69........that has to be one of the best posts yet.......looks like no one has any smart comments for this one  
Seems the creepers on this forum who post simple and cheeky comments rather than secure information ARE SILENCED!  

Lets see some more ACCURATE INFO and proven facts and less garbage talk.

Unfortunatley the ingorant are close in number to those who KNOW BETTER so we keep trying to educate them and hope some of them realize how wrong they are, then maybe they can join in to help rid us of the REAL PESTILENCE as Nicki69 has so eloquently posted above and maybe stop picking on the innocent creatures who get caught up in the middle of these HUMAN games.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Poodle Fights would be funny.... as long as they were Puffily Groomed and wearing Pink ribbons, I don't think the Gang Bangers would Like that!  actuly any kind of crulty to animals is wrong....

Edit. Any kind of Cruelty to any Living organism is wrong. If you eat meat, please give thanks to the Great and Mighty Cow God! (or whatever animal it may come from)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Italianangel said:


> Wow, now am I glad you posted - NICKI69........that has to be one of the best posts yet.......looks like no one has any smart comments for this one
> Seems the creepers on this forum who post simple and cheeky comments rather than secure information ARE SILENCED!


Not yet, we're not!


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

*Look at what the winnipeg ban has caused?*

Yes, let's look at the Winnipeg ban for a moment. . . 

The Winnipeg Sun reports that total dog bites are down:

*The efforts are paying off as the municipal pound has overseen a gradual reduction in dog-bite attacks, which had hit 310 in 1990 -- the year its controversial prohibition on pit bull ownership kicked in.

"It's been steadily going down and we're sitting around 150 to 160 right now," Dack added, pointing to the 166 canine bites reported in 2003.

"We're cutting it down. We've had a 50% reduction here over the past 14 years, which is fairly significant." *


And The CBC's Marketplace reports that the number of serious bites has plummeted:

*A year later Winnipeg banned pitbulls. It was the first major Canadian city to do so. Pitbulls purchased prior to the ban must be licensed, tagged as dangerous, leashed and muzzled when they leave home. Owners must take out $300,000 in liability insurance.

Since the bylaw was enacted, the number of serious dog attacks in the city has dropped from about 25 a year to one or two.*

While I would prefer dangerous dog legislation to breed-specific legislation, I'll take it whatever way it comes.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Italian angel, have you actually read through this entire thread? There are many of us who are against the ban. 
I personally have spent many years with border collie rescue. I can honestly say this: NOT ALL ANIMALS SHOULD BE KEPT ALIVE. There ARE some bad animals out there. In nature, they would be killed by their pack members, or simply wouldn't have survived. We humans interfere and keep them all alive .. just because. 

Vinnie.. did you know that poodles USED to be used for hunting? Apparently that groom - sans ribbons - was to protect the joints from cold etc, but to keep the coat from getting full of brambles.. or something like that. I say "used to" because all the savvy breeders have bred out any instinct to hunt for the sake of beauty. That is precisely why the Border Collie is not recognized by the CKC, nor will it ever be... if Border Collie users have anything to say about it! I cannot imagine my Data never coming into existence because he didn't fit some predetermined criteria of what he should look like. He is all of 30lbs soaking wet, smooth coated, and very little white on him. I frequently get asked what he is:"lab and???" sigh... 

If THEY can't even figure out a purebred Border Collie, how do we know THEY will be able to figure out a pitter, or a staffie, or a bull terrier, or or or... what if it is 5% pitbull? 

Muzzle them all. Let the dog fighters fight their dogs, and the rest of us muzzle ours. If a dog has no muzzle then we get a fine. just like the leash law. Muzzled dogs can't bite.


----------



## Italianangel (Feb 14, 2005)

again using news and media to back yourself sinc  .....that is not evidence nor facts.....lets look at spca info and vet info, hospital records. 
According to those factors other breed dog bites have increased in Winnepeg, cane corso, dogo argentina and such mastiff breeds as well as big dogs in general, which the pit is not. And that was actually in the news too, just 2 days ago, in Vancouver, a report on an increase in other breed bites in Winnepeg but there is an official report on that.  

and yes bo beep if you have read my posts, you will see I did say 'awesome' to those against the ban or euth.........we need to regulate  humans. You have not offended me in your posts so I did not address you but did address the one in particular who said kill them all. Then these other 2 wise guys post stuff to be devils advocate which is great but still not enough to stand as TRUE FACTS.

But bo peep, if you worked with border collie rescue then you know very well they are right up there according to temperment testing, as biters. I know a lady out here who works Border Collie rescue - also worked with spca, so she knows different breeds and has dealt with pitties too. She found that the border collies were far more HUMAN aggressive than pitties. I know this personally as well since I have many associates with Border collies and you can't touch thier food or toys and some of them have had training etc.........they get nippy, pits don't do that normally..........not to say one breed it better but to say DOGS ARE DOGS, and precautions should be taken with any animals. They should all be free really, like a post I read here, but unfortunately reality is that humans interfere. ONe breed or another, they are all capable of biting and being turned into a killing machine, even poodles, they are just usually small enough to get off you but can do much damage - agian I have stats on this too, and not news or media stuff.

muzzles are not an answer and rarely enforced. I know, I live in Vancouver. Those dogs wearing them actually need them and are not all bully breeds either. WE are actually pretty lucky in Vancouver, its been lax and the pound officials know better than to believe the hype on these dogs. Same ordeal as the dobbys back in the 70s and 80s, just now they pick on bullys. I have parks in my area where pits have played off leash and muzzle free for over 20 years with no incident, the ones who are not social are not let off leash and if need be muzzled and that goes for any breed. Most owners are responsible and those you never hear about.........just the squeaky wheels.........and they are ruining it for the many loving dogs and responsible owners which really SUCKS!!!  

I have contacts within the Vet Assoc., local ERs and animal ERS for BC and through Canada, various dog training facilities and trainers who have been in the biz for over 20 years. I also work closely with police stats. Those docs are hard to get but much more accurate than these news pieces which are usually muffled in facts. I Have networked carefully for this as I will be a speaker at council and have been in the past.  

There are NO BAD animals, just bad humans, they cause the problems. AGain look at the cause not effect, open your mind and get real facts not newspaper crap which is never 100% correct. 

Also, don't be blind. These officials looking for bans...............are up for election.....hmmmmm. MOtivated by bias. When do they actually do stuff to help the people? They usually do things to help THEMSELVES!!! Suddenly Tim Stevenson is no longer asking for a Vancouver ban as he had so many letters and fears losing election............there is much more to this, GRASSHOPPER, than the dogs or bites, you, me, the forum, or even the owners! yes yes, much more  

Also true pits are not supposed to exceed 60 lbs for males or 50 for females.........humans are breeding them, and line breeding them now not just for fighting as it used to be, but for aggression to protect thier money, drugs and gang operations. They also breed them for enormity to make up for the lack of who knows what...........macho fools. 100 lb pits never existed and we are creating them, that is wrong!

They also make a hefty killing on the gambling of fights which are majorly run by children under 19!!!!!!!! Now lets leash them up. Why aren't these kids being watched by thier parents?? They breed them and we pay in taxes and they cause all the damages that the dogs have to pay for with abuse, being shot, killed. What is a kid doing with a dog anyway..........that is an adults duty not a kid, they can help but the parents need to be responsible for the dog and child or else don't have either.

I have been dealing with this issue and its stats and info, for over 15 years.........I know my stuff.  
I do enjoy the banter though, this forum is much better than I thought it would be, I did not intend to return but I have due to the interesting info going back and forth.


----------



## Italianangel (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't think any of us should walk around in fear that we may be attacked and possibly killed by a dog, any breed and I agree that this is the issue that needs to be dealt with, not a breed of dog but how humans are regulating their pets. 

I have been bitten by a dog, on leash as a child and wear the scars on my face to this day. It was a boxer. I do not hate boxers although I do not prefer them as a choice for pet. My parents ultimatley should have been watching me and what I was up to, that is the bottom line. 
The old lady who owned the dog died that day of a heart attack when she saw her dog attack me as a 3 year old, the dog was of course euthed. We did not sue as the property belonged to an influencial person and so no one at that time would represent my parents. 
And how did that all solve anything? Even had we sued..............today we still hear of dog bites in the news and many that are recorded but no in the media, those of which are of other breeds than the bulls. Bottom line, they still occur with dogs in general and need to be dealt with at the owners level.

I think if a person were to be fined thousands of dollars for an incident that would definatley have people thinking and help minimize the bites but those who are in the illegal circles will not care about any laws and gladly break them and that is another issue in this matter which really should be looked at. But as you see, my suggestions bring the responsibility back to the owners! 
By insisting on leash and muzzles for ALL dogs or all of a breed, those who are responsible and have no problems are punished. By banning a breed or size of dog you are taking away the right of choice and swaying from enforcing adult responsibility.
We need to look at the bigger picture of things and solutions of feasability.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I have been bitten by a dog, on leash as a child and wear the scars on my face to this day. It was a boxer. I do not hate boxers although I do not prefer them as a choice for pet. My parents ultimatley should have been watching me and what I was up to, that is the bottom line.


no, the bottom line is that it is the owners responsibility to keep their dogs under control. the law agrees.



> but those who are in the illegal circles will not care about any laws and gladly break them and that is another issue in this matter which really


so are you saying it is only gangmembers' pitbulls that attack people?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Yes your parents should have been watching you, but it was not your fault, nor theirs. As TMR states, it is the responsibility of the dog owner for the training and interactions of their pets. No excuses, end of story. I don't care if you were dancing naked down the street with saugages tied around your neck, it is the owners responsibility to either have trained their dog or to restrain them in order not to hurt people.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Sometimes there ARE bad dogs. just like sometimes there are bad humans. 

Sometimes the genes are bad. Line breeding, inbreeding etc etc are all causes of bad dogs, regardless of training. That is a fact of life. 

Border Collies ARE biters. If any of my dogs were afraid to bite then I might consider it a genetic defect. HOWEVER... my dogs work at the job they were intended to work at. The good working dogs have no problem whatsover biting sheep when asked or required. My working dogs are better tempered than my pet bred Border Collies. THAT says something. One of those Border Collies should have been put down. I can't do it because I love him way too much. I do know that muzzling him gives me the freedom to give him the kind of life he should have if he didn't have this little biting problem. THAT is my point. We will never ever get rid of the bad guys who breed bad dogs. The bad dogs will always exist. Sometimes good people end up with bad dogs. Most times these people love their dogs and can't see fit to blame the genetics of the dog and kill the dog [I can't bring myself to do it and I am the one saying this stuff!] 

What then, is the answer? Why won't muzzling work? How is it any different from having to put a leash on my dogs? They just look at me like I've committed them to death... but I do it because I am a responsible dog owner. If all dogs wear muzzles, then they just get used to seeing each other with muzzles and think nothing of it.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

*Very Graphic*

I was Looking on line for stuff because I have seen both types of dogs


THIS IS VERY GRAPHIC IF YOU ARE SKWEAMISH DO NOT WATCH !!!!!!!!!!

DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://gprime.net/flash.php/thepitbullproblem


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Nope, I couldn't get past the first two screens. 

Dog fights are bloody awful. I don't need further evidence to support that. 

No animal should ever have to endure a life like that, but they do. 
Why should the breed be banned because certain buffoons do this to them??? 
To be honest, every animal that has to endure that life is better off dead. 

Nope, I don't want to watch that.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry it goes on from there , that was to show how a lot of people see these dogs and stupid A$$holes turn them in to . My friends pit bull is a big baby that just looks for pats on the head and belly rubs and runs in the park . If another dog is agressive or barks it comes and hides behind you . All of the viciousness is learn behavior


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

I disagree that the viciousness is 100% learned. I KNOW that there are some dogs that are just genetically inferior. Whether it is inbreeding, or line breeding some recessive gene etc. 

ie: My friend has been breeding Border Collies for 28 years. She meticulously developed her line and never had an instance of deafness. In her last 3 litters she has had something like 4 deaf pups. It is possible that she has been breeding a recessive deaf gene all these years and then it just reared it's ugly head. These deaf puppies are genetically inferior. 

It is possible, likely even, that there are some breeders who are unknowingly breeding some sort of genetic character trait that is causing this severe behavior. It is also likely that there are bad breeders that are inbreeding etc causing bad behaviour. 

I repeat. There ARE bad dogs. The bad dogs need to be recognized for what they are. They SHOULD be euthanized. 

On the whole though, there are more bad people than bad dogs. Remember, the bad people have learned this behaviour too - or is it genetic?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> deaf puppies are genetically inferior.


I'd say you are personifying there Bo. They may be genetically 'different' but inferior is a value judgement. Can't hear a call, can't heard sheep, inferior to sheep herders but maybe a very obedient, docile, visually acute pet for someone.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Deafness is a genetic flaw. Dogs are not supposed to be deaf. 

They are hard to sell, very few people want to work with the disability. She had to basically give the pups away. No one would pay for a deaf pup - and BTW - she breeds only pet quality Border Collies, not working dogs. 

Better example: She had a bitch that was a fear biter. She euthanized her at 7 months old. Unacceptable behaviour. Call it a god like mentality, but it is the responsible thing to do.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

bopeep said:


> She had a bitch that was a fear biter. She euthanized her at 7 months old. Unacceptable behavior. Call it a god like mentality, but it is the responsible thing to do.


Not sure I agree with this example. Fear biting is a behavior that can easily be fixed with training. I do agree with you though. There are some dogs that can snap and bite no matter if they were in a loving home or not. Again though, it can happen in any breed.
A lot of the time, it can be attributed to illness such as brain tumors. 

I have been looking at the link italianangel posted earlier. I can't believe anyone who sees what these poor dogs go through can still blame the dogs. I'm not implying all "breeders" treat their animals this way but bad genes are passed from one backyard breeder to another. 

I will be very upset if pits get banned and people decide that Boxers are the new tough guy dog of choice. I'd hate to see the breed I love ruined and the next to be on the banned list.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Don't worry Digital Gary, I'd just use my boxer as the poster child for the campaign. The only fear there is that you might get a big dose of snot in your face as she snorts at you and does that little boxer curl/wiggle. You know the one I'm talking about. 

I'm all for banning large poodles. The only dogs I've ever had a problem with.


----------



## biobrat (Apr 20, 2005)

*dogs in general*

I have experience working with all sorts of dog breeds so I thought I'd share what I have learned.

I worked/volunteered in an SPCA last summer. I worked in the isolation unit where all of the new animals would be brought for observation and a 3 day holding period where their owners could claim them if they cared enough to be looking for their missing pet. It was also where we housed the "dangerous dogs" before they were euthanised and where feral and abused animals were kept until they were ready, tamed or healed enough, to be adopted. In the time I was working at the spca we only had 4 dangerous dogs come in, one a shepherd husky cross who bit a little girls face after she tried to take away a bone, a Boston terrier (pure bred) who attacked unprovoked and a rotti-sheperdX who was also unprovoked. The fourth was another husky that was very dog aggressive, he was small so when they did the annual walkathon he was given to a small kid to walk (stupid on the volunteers part) this dog became stressed at the amount of other dogs at the walkathon and attacked the little boy. _note that in this area huskyX, shepherdX, RottiX and labX are the most common breeds in this area, from purely chance the ratio of attacks by these breeds will be higher because ther are more of them. _

Honestly pitbulls are fairly expensive where I live, and usually cost over $200 for an unregistered pup and very few ever end up in the shelter. Those that do are usually quickly adopted out. I googled a search on pit bull attacks in my province... not a single one. What does this mean, there are pitbulls here... but no attacks... 

The dogs I saw almost certainly came from irresponsible owner, this is why most of them had no manners, were untrained, and were allowed to run astray in the city streets landing them with me. These animals also for the most part lacked proper socialization so I saw allot of dog-dog aggression in the shelter this aggression was not restricted to any breed; Small terrier, husky, rotti, lab, otterhound, pitbull or the mut that we just couldn't lable with a breed. The worst accident actually happened with the lab, it was a female adult lab that had managed to pull the cheek flap of the neighboring dog's face through the fence between kennels and tore right through it. This dog was euthanised and during the euthanasia attacked the kennel worker and vet... this was a black lab, that family dog you'd trust with your life... right... 

In truth any dog regardless of breed is has the capability to attack. A good rule of thumb is never ever approach a dog you don't know, doesn't matter if its an akita, pitbull, rotti, shepherd, golden retriever, lab or poodle mut or pure bred. If you don't know the dog you can't predict what it will do in the presence of a stranger (you) and you don't know what it will do in the presence of another dog. If the owner is there and you want to interact with the animal then ask first and don't touch any of the high risk areas (general areas that dogs are sensitive about, eyes ears, mouth, or feet.)

If you have fears about any dog take it upon yourself to learn a bit of dog behavior and learn how to read their body language and what you are saying to them with yours. 

p.s. the people involved in dog fighting are already breaking laws and don’t really seem to care, the don’t register their dogs and would not be deterred from owning and abusing their dogs if we tacked on yet another law. Finally you have no idea how hard it is to get the current animal welfare laws enforced I doubt very much that new ones would be enforced any better.

biobrat


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

$200 is expensive? I paid over $1000 more than that for my Bernese Mountain Dog and I'd be very lucky to get another one of his quality at that price now.

I find the whole Pit Bull ban idea distasteful. I personally don't like these breeds, but I still think a blanket ban is a bad idea when it is the owners that are the problem at least 99% of the time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

If we breed Daisy this summer, her pups shall sell for $1000+ US. 

I too dislike pit bulls, and agree with mbaldwin that oftentimes the owner is to blame. Still, certain dogs are bred for various reasons. My Old English Sheepdog use to try and herd the children in Churchill Park by running circles around their small groups. My doxies dig for imaginary badgers in our garden.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Pitbulls are bred to fight like those Doxies are bred to till the soil. There are lots of Pitbull owners around Halifax. I love the way they take them for walks, Like the Pitbull wants to run away, and is dragging the human behind it. That says "Safety" in my mind! 

Animals can be dangerous, even my cat Loki gives a painful backclaw if he no longer wants to be held.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

VC, I have never heard of a doxie bred to "till the soil". They are digging/hunting dogs bred to root out badgers and wolverines. They are very territorial and will defend their home turf to the death.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

So my Image of Doxies digging through the garden, planting sunflowers is just a dream, ah well, it's a nice though. I wouldn't want to meet a gang of them, so mant bitey little jaws, good Idea for a horror film though... Alferd Hitchcock's lesser known work, "The Doxies"... Sounds like a Farside Cartoon!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

VC, when I had some holes dug to plant tulips a few years ago when Rootie (doxie #1) was a pup, he saw the holes and went right for them, digging like crazy. Since there are no badgers, that I know of, around my house, it was instinct that was driving him into this frenzy. When they get hold of a badger, they hold on and drag it out of the hole. The rest is not a pretty sight, from I have read.


----------



## biobrat (Apr 20, 2005)

Yeah you can always find pure bred or rare breeds for exceedingly high prices <my aunt owns half of a $5,000 german shepherd> but honestly it doesn't make them a better dog, just because you paid more money for them, some of the most intelligent wonderful pets i have ever seen were muts from the local SPCA then again i saw some pretty goofy pups as well. Dogs need to be looked at as individuals because they are. Even with heavily inbred breeds of dogs they are not carbon copies of each other, yes genetics play a role but environmental factors also play a HUGE role in how an animal behaves. 
biobrat.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Biobrat, I agree. I am in amazement as the prices we have paid for our dogs and what we shall sell the pups for to another breeder. This is only because Daisy has her US and Canadian Kennel Club Championships and her "suitor" has his US championship points. These are show dogs, even though they make great house pets...........so long as you don't try to enter our house unescorted. Then, you had better have a pit bull to protect you, or be able to turn and run quickly............very quickly.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

The high price usually indicates a responsible breeder. One that does proper health and temperment testing. The obvious exception pet stores. They tend to have the most unhealthy dogs at the highest prices!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

DG, sad but true. I questioned a local pet store selling pedigreed dogs for more than a thousand dollars. These were gotten from "puppy mills" and not breeders, since they had no papers from the Can. Kennel Club.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Also, my wife shall not sell a doxie pup this summer to just anyone. She has a list of questions they have to answer to her satisfaction, but a home visit check. In all honesty, I don't think that I could pass the test and I refuse to sign the loyalty oath.


----------



## biobrat (Apr 20, 2005)

Don't forget high price can also mean the breed is in high demand... look at what people are willing to pay for small, non-shedding, mixbreed or unregistered small dogs. 
Yeah I guess if you're looking to show dogs of a particular breed then you should go to a reputable breeder... but when it comes to finding a good pet quality animal please try looking in an animal shelter before you go out and buy a pet... there are so many wonderful dogs and cats and puppies and kittens that are put down everyday because no one wants them... Even if you are interested in a certain breed you can usually find a rescue center that specializes in them. 
honestly i have only ever had purebred golden retrievers, all registered, and i remember the intense questionair we had to fill out for the last one, which i didn't mind. But after spending a sumer working with the dogs in the shelter and having to assist with euthinasia i will never go anywhere else for a dog or cat. The saying in the shelter circle goes... please don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die.. mutts forever


----------



## confused (Mar 9, 2006)

*pitt bulls*

help, im confused. I currently own two pitt bulls. They have been with us since they were eight weeks old. we have three kids, who love them dearly. they have been raised around nothing but love. they have been well taken care of and never taught to harm anyone. they have even been through obedience school. recently one bit a little girl that walked into our house without knocking. the other attacked another dog and wouldnt let go for nothing. this is not how we raised them. they are truely very loving. i dont know what to do with them now. should i put them to sleep, or did they have valid reasons to do what they did.


----------



## confused (Mar 9, 2006)

would he give up the dog if he bit a child.


----------



## confused (Mar 9, 2006)

and some call it a slap on the hand


----------



## confused (Mar 9, 2006)

the solution is not that simple. I own two pitts and i consider myself a responsible owner. Unfortunatly a little girl walked into my house and my dog attacked her. This is completely out of his character. What would be your solution to this.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

Oh god here we go. This is where all the pit haters use this to prove their point that all pits are bad and should all be killed. 

First of all, they likely did not do this out of the blue. You should really look into a professional dog trainer/behaviourist for your problem. It isn't something you are going to solve by coming on a board like this. If you need help finding one, PM me. I can send you in the right direction. 

As far as what to do, it is really up to you. If you have young kids only you can anwser the question of if they are safe. You know your kids and your dogs better than anyone. Just keep in mind that your dogs will be killed if you turn them over to the humane society. 

How often do you have people over? Are they not used to stangers walking in? 
If the girl is from you area, is it possible she has teased your dog before? Just grasping at straws here. Your dog was not trying to seriously hurt her though. If it was, she would be. A young girl is no match for any medium sized dog trying to do her harm. Another potential cause is a health problem. A possible brain tumor comes to mind if this truely was out of no where.

Personally, if it were me, I would try and find a safe home for the dog. With a new owner that has experience with pitbulls and is willing to take on the risk. I don't think I would trust this dog with my own kids unless you can find out why this incident happened in the first place. Pitbulls are very protective of their family so likely your kids wouldn't be in any danger but it just simply is not worth the risk. 

If you decide to keep the dog, it is a huge responsibility to you to make sure your kids are never left alone with it. You also have to take measures to ensure no-one can ever walk into your house unannouced putting your dog in that situation again. 

Now, for the other one that attacked a dog. Not much you can do here. It happens. Who knows what signal the other dog gave off. It is possible your dog thought it was defending itself, you or whoever else was around at the time. It is possible your dog has had an incident in the past with that dog or one of the same breed. I can tell you from experience, dogs remember. My dog was attacked as a puppy by a rottie. To this day, he HATES rotties. That, and a couple others, has made him quite dog aggressive but when he sees a rottie, it is a completely different matter. 

Again, if you are going to keep these dogs, you neeed help. If you are in Ontario and need a trainer recommendation, PM me. 

Good luck and I hope everyone involved is okay.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

bad news this weekend : (i googled all these)

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-091506-jmn-neighbors_pit_bull.122e19fc.html

http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_4349336

http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/288257190398144.php

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060919/NEWS99/60919013

http://www.nbc-2.com/satellite/060919_ponyattacked.shtml

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20442459-661,00.html


Maybe not so bad??

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2006/09/19/wells-dogs.html



These are great news!!!!!!!!! These reminds me of Steve Irwin, don't know why.



A Cornered Pit Bull: Bounty Hunter Becomes Prey


By DAVID CARR for www.nytimes.com

Published: September 18, 2006

The eight or so men crept quietly up to the house in the Portlock neighborhood of Hawaii at the crack of dawn. The woman inside was making school lunches for her children and noticed them too late. They bum-rushed the bedroom, capturing their target in cuffs before he knew what hit him.


Duane Chapman, known as Dog, the premier American bounty hunter, would have appreciated their artistry had he not been the guy in handcuffs. Mr. Chapman, the star of A&E’s highly rated “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” was transported to the federal detention center in Honolulu to await extradition to Mexico on a three-year-old charge stemming from his capture in Mexico of Andrew Luster, the Max Factor heir who was eventually convicted of raping three women.

Back in 2003 Mr. Chapman and his colleagues were charged by Mexican authorities with “deprivation of liberty” and held in jail in Puerto Vallarta before they made bail and slipped out of the country. Now, with less than a month before the warrant would have expired and in the midst of filming the fourth season of his enormously successful reality series, Mr. Chapman was the one being brought to justice. (Yesterday the Chapman family suggested that some horse trading was under way, pointing out that Francisco Rafael Arellano Félix, part of a Mexican drug cartel, was handed over to United States authorities.)

As American symbols go, Mr. Chapman is a pretty epic one. He has had 4 wives, 12 children, 18 robbery convictions, a conviction for being an accessory to murder, and, according to his math, more than 7,000 fugitives brought to justice. He belonged to a biker gang, but cries easily and enjoys vacuuming. His show, filmed mostly in Hawaii, is a mix of tweaking meth-heads and postarrest moralism, a business built on repossessing human flesh. But with Mr. Chapman, the drama always seems to continue after the cameras shut off. On the day he was to be married this spring in a filmed ceremony, his estranged daughter died. And now this.

“He leads a complicated, edgy life,” said Lucas Platt, the supervising producer of the show. “Going after Andrew Luster was a risky decision, but he thought it was the right thing to do. Now it has taken an unfortunate turn.” The turn won’t hurt ratings. A&E plans a special for tomorrow night, and the stories about his travails will only add to the legend. The man who brought vengeance to thousands of bail jumpers found himself on the wrong end of justice.

“I was totally freaked out,” Mr. Chapman said on the phone Saturday after he had posted a $300,000 bail to await a hearing on extradition. “There were guys that I had put in there that were yelling all sorts of things at me.”

His wife Beth, a co-star in the series, worked frantically for his release.

The 2003 Luster arrest, which catapulted Mr. Chapman to a new level of celebrity and eventually resulted in A&E signing him for the series, led to a lasting grudge on the part of Mexican authorities, who demanded that the United States extradite the bounty hunter.

On Thursday night the Mexican attorney general released a statement suggesting that what Mr. Chapman had done was an affront to national sovereignty.

Larry Butrick, chief of the criminal division for the United States Attorney’s Office in Honolulu, said that his staff was merely executing a valid warrant that came from headquarters in Washington.

“The court here really will just be looking at the legality of the extradition and if there is a fit under the treaty we have with Mexico,” he said.

One of Mr. Chapman’s lawyers is hoping that the matter can be settled somewhere short of a Mexican prison.

“I have a high level of confidence that we will be able work with the good will and good faith of the Mexican authorities in resolving this satisfactorily,” said William C. Bollard, who represents Mr. Chapman, his son Leland and Tim Chapman (no relation), a bounty-hunting colleague, all of whom helped apprehend Mr. Luster. For now the Dog is at large, albeit with an ankle bracelet.

“If I have a fugitive on the run and have to go out at night, I have to notify them,” he said, referring to federal officials. “I have no problem with that.”


In the month before his arrest, Mr. Chapman was busy hunting jumpers for the benefit for those who posted bond, and for a nimble A&E camera crew that jogged after them. The show’s template is simple and effective: The quarry is selected, a plan is made among the family members who make up most of his crew, the hunt commences and then capture, usually followed by a hug at the end, although a handcuffed one.

A bad guy made good by an 18-month stint in prison on the accessory-to-murder charge, Mr. Chapman sees an arrest as a kind of intervention, a way to let the runner face the music and begin a new life.

“We put families back together,” he explained, even though they often do that by putting one of the heads of the household behind bars. It has been wildly popular — “Dog the Bounty Hunter” is A&E’s most-watched show — partly because his mix of mayhem and moralizing has a kind of outlaw sweetness. It is a bit of Ward Cleaver, though accompanied by multiple cans of Mace, just in case.

On television, or in person during a recent visit by a reporter to Mr. Chapman’s headquarters in Hawaii, the hunt is a spectacle to behold. On a hot day near the end of August, Mr. Chapman laid out the agenda for the day. Item first and last: putting bond jumper Monalisa Hartsock in cuffs.

“She has the letter R tattooed on her left breast,” Dog told his colleagues at Da Kine Bail Bonds, which he and his wife own on Queen Emma Street in Honolulu. Speaking from behind major sunglasses that play MP3’s including “I Fought the Law” and thumping an ornate American Indian walking stick for emphasis, Dog warned that Ms. Hartsock was one of the many island inhabitants who got lost in smokable meth: “She knows she is going to jail.” The lowdown on Ms. Hartsock is followed by a shout-out to Jesus, who always rides point on any hunt.

Hawaii is a near-perfect ecosystem for bounty hunting. It is a rock, after all, thousands of miles out in the ocean, so a person can hide in only so many places. Meth has overtaken the island, so there is no shortage of bail-jumping, tweaky perps. Dog crossed over after his prison time, but just barely, still working the corners of the law to substantial effect. The rest of his crew could not be cast any better: Beth, a large sexpot with brutal intelligence and an oft-hidden heart of gold; Tim, the wizened sensei who works himself into a quiet rage; Duane Lee, the normal guy with abnormal biceps who loves taking down bad guys; Leland, the wayward son swaddled in tattoos and mail from adoring fans, and “Baby” Lisa, the up-and-coming toughie.

Mr. Chapman sees himself as a fisher of men, an enforcer who brings people to justice in what he calls “the cuffs of love.” He first turned it around as the No. 1 Kirby vacuum cleaner salesman in the country during the early 1970’s and now has taken his dust-busting ways to cleaning up the culture at large.

In a single episode he works the gutters for data, deploys phony accents and white lies on the phone, and physically tracks a runner in a way that seems a bit supernatural. It helps that most crooks are dumb as a box of rocks, but still.

The name Monalisa has Beth Chapman humming the song recorded by Nat King Cole. She has a lovely voice, albeit paired with a top-heavy endowment that borders on the architectural and a tendency to go junkyard dog when cornered. All honey for the time being, she convinces one of Monalisa’s pals who posted bail to help them find her.

Beth gently explained to Desiree that while it is hard to give up a pal, “the alternative is you have to pay the bond.” A call finally went through to Monalisa: Desiree convinced her to meet at a 76 gas station. The trap is set.

Right on schedule, Monalisa pulled in. “That’s her,” Desiree said. But Beth’s car was momentarily blocked in by Tim’s so she could not come around the other side; Monalisa saw Dog — tough to miss in his stunt mullet— hop out of Tim’s car, and she began backing up. Leland flew out of Beth’s car and filled the fleeing car with Mace, as did Duane Lee, but Monalisa tore out in reverse and careened through an intersection toward the highway, cars squealing to avoid her. Beth, in hot pursuit, filled the car with expletives : “Of all the rookie moves in the world!” she said. She fruitlessly crisscrosses the nearby neighborhood at high speed, while the car driven by Tim does the same. Mistakes were made. (Monalisa was finally captured by Dog and company early this month.)

Dog freely admits later to messing up Monalisa’s capture. He pleads guilty as well and to rolling around in his 15 minutes. “I always wanted to be the good guy in the black hat,” he said.

Despite the success of his show, his team had to scrape together money to bail him. Each member of the crew has a hard-knock history, no one assuming they deserve or can depend on success. They may have gone Hollywood, but their trashy roots are never painted over with peroxide.

By definition, anybody Mr. Chapman catches is having a bad day, but when the chase is over, Dog always gives them a cigarette and The Talk, an echo of a life-changing discussion he had with a deputy who was taking him to jail so many years ago.

Earlier that same week in August the hunting was more fruitful. After looking all over Oahu, they found Jacob Falenofoa, another meth casualty, with the help of his wife, who co-signed the bond. They found him at the house of a girlfriend’s parents in Pearl City. Riding back on H1, a highway that heads back to Honolulu, Dog went all biblical on Jacob, talking about how the drugs he was doing “ate his brain” and how deep down he was a good family man. This being Hawaii, a rainbow bloomed to the north as the speech peaked.

Dog said he was happy with the day’s outcome.

“I believe in what I do, I am good at what I do, and I want to be able to say that Jesus played a role in it,” he said. “Never, ever, has anyone ever escaped.”

Not even Dog. A few short weeks later, the cuffs of love found Mr. Chapman.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

When a friend just walked into our home, with no knock or no ringing of the doorbell, Daisy, who just had a litter of puppies, bit her in the ankle. The other doxies were jumping all over her to lick her, wanting to play, but the mother was defending the puppies. Thus, I am able to understand the situation that "confused" faced.


----------

