Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Are Republicans becoming more libertarian? | Main | Ontario PC Party YouTube debate: Ask your question »

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Hillier would repeal the pit bull ban

Happy pitbullRandy Hillier announced today that, were he made Premier of Ontario he would repeal the province's pit bull ban.

The effect of the law is that it unjustly targets responsible dog owners and brands Pit Bulls and other larger dogs as dangerous when all responsible dog owners know this is false and does nothing to advance public safety.

As the Premier of this Province and owner of “Robbie” (a Pitt Bull mix) I will overturn this specific breed ban. I will work in cooperation with groups like the CKC and other dog clubs have, to get this legislation overturned.

I will do my part to assist them to overturn this unjust law and protect people’s freedom to own dogs while protecting the public from people who own or train dogs in a manner that is dangerous to the public.

This would be a small but meaningful restoration of freedom to the people of Ontario, who under the McGuinty government have seen legislators and the bureaucracy gain far too much say over how they live their lives.

Posted by Janet Neilson on April 23, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

The Pit Bull ban is a perfectly reasonable limitation of freedom in a free and democratic society. My right to walk down a sidewalk or chill in a park without having to worry if I look the wrong way at an attack dog supercedes your right to own an attack dog. There are children and families and the elderly to consider, too, not everyone is a heroic 21 year old Randian undergraduate.

We typically don't allow gorillas and mountain lions to be kept as pets for much the same reason, has nothing to do with being fascist and everything to do with calculating risk vs. reward. If you want to own a beast that badly, many countries in Africa allow people to have various forms of dangerous wildlife; they're typically not considered civilized countries, but then again neither are most countries without order.

Posted by: No Commies | 2009-04-23 9:36:20 AM


Commies,

I assume you support all gun ownership restrictions and bans then. If you do, then we simply disagree.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-23 9:52:15 AM


Janet: Guns are never autonomous.

Given such a fundamental difference between pets and guns, that seems like a horribly flawed assumption you're making.

Posted by: K Stricker | 2009-04-23 10:11:12 AM


Sorry, Commie, but the pit bull is no more prone to biting than any other breed. More people are bitten by Cocker Spaniels. And even if we consider only fatal dog attacks, we find that the rate per dog is lower for "pit-bull types" than it is for the Great Dane, the Saint Bernard, the Dobermann, the German Shepherd, the Rottweiler, and the Chow Chow.

In fact, "pit bull" is not a breed at all. It's a political term, similar to "assault weapon," used to describe any of a number of large, powerful dogs including the Staffordshire terrier, the mastiff, and the bulldog, in order to concoct a media frenzy. The methodology is similar to those used by the gun-grabbers, and just as dishonest.

As for the "danger" posed by these breeds, my family owned three Dobermanns, who between them never bit one person. The only person our first Dobermann did not like (but never bit) was the milkman, who, it turned out later, murdered his wife, hacked her into bits, and buried her in their backyard. They were basically big lap dogs, because that is how they were raised. I work with a woman who once owned a huge mastiff and described her (the dog) as the gentlest of creatures. This is all anecdotal, granted, but dog experts have pointed this out time and time again: The quality of the owner is a far better predictor of a dog's temperament than the dog's breed. Just as shitty parents produce shitty kids.

As for Ontario's law itself, it was highly controversial from the start, because of Mike Bryant's monumental ego, autocratic mindset, and the knuckleheaded obstinacy that came to distinguish his numerous legal crusades. He intended to ban them from the start; the public consultations were a baldfaced sham, the more sordid details of which he did not even try to conceal. He's the closest thing Ontario has to Hugo Chavez. It was a bad law, badly made by a notoriously inept justice minister and approved by a Blairesque premier who never saw a ban he didn't like. That alone is grounds for review.

So if this really is nothing more than risk vs. reward for you, Commie, you'll have to ban all of the above-named breeds first. And can you see the looks on the audience's faces when you tell them you want to ban the Saint Bernard? Maybe you should read Cujo to them.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 10:39:42 AM


I own a rotty and he is the biggest teddy bear you'd ever meet, he lets little kids ride him around the yard like a pony. I definitely agree that it is bad owners that make bad dogs.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-04-23 11:00:53 AM


So can we ban the bad owners?

Posted by: Charles | 2009-04-23 1:06:03 PM


"Janet: Guns are never autonomous.

Given such a fundamental difference between pets and guns, that seems like a horribly flawed assumption you're making.

Posted by: K Stricker | 2009-04-23 10:11:12 AM"

K - if dogs or guns are owned, and either are potentially dangerous, then in either case the owner should be held responsible should a lack of care (or malicious action) on their part leads to someone being hurt.

The argument for making this kind of ban goes like this:

X is potentially dangerous.
People have been hurt by X, and so X is demonstrably dangerous.
Nobody *needs* X.
Therefore, X should be banned.

While more care obviously has to be taken for an animal, which acts in part on its own, it doesn't follow that the general assumption is flawed. You could easily substitute either "guns" or "pit bulls" in for X and have the argument many people use for banning either guns or pit bulls.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-23 1:12:55 PM


Regardless of the above comments I will now not vote Hillier as a PC leader.

Posted by: Hoarfrost | 2009-04-23 1:41:27 PM


Unfortunately, Charles, that would be like banning bad parents.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 1:58:29 PM


Fido! Bite that man on the leg!

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 2:02:26 PM


When guns grow legs and charge about neighbourhoods shooting people i'll concede the comparison.
When a child inadvertantly steps into a back yard and a gun jumps out of storage and shoots him i'll concede the point.
When a pit bull or rottie owner tearfully explains how good and well behaved their bred for violence dog is usually so good with kids and that the child in hospital with half her scalp ripped off must have provoked it i'll...actually i'll say how sick I am of hearing this.
The last rottie that got loose in our neighbourhood was tazered 4 times by the police and it didn't even slow it down. Of course they then shot it and of course the owner and fellow travellers accused the police of excessive force.

Posted by: B Clarkson | 2009-04-23 2:17:46 PM


"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities)(~300 total deaths, mostly children) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

Mill's principle is "do no harm".

"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Posted by: DJ | 2009-04-23 2:25:30 PM


It was a joke Shane. I agree with you.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-04-23 2:30:37 PM


ok. show me your guns. that is anyone who really owns one.

Posted by: old white guy | 2009-04-23 2:57:00 PM


DJ don't you think those numbers are more of an indication that those dogs , because of their size and power are most often chosen by people who want to raise dangerous dogs?

People probably don't choose a collie, or a poodle when they are in the market for a "guard dog".

I think the numbers in given in that study are misleading and were probably intended to be.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-04-23 3:02:53 PM


DrG.

For the purebreds listed below, mostly big guard dog types, of the 180 deaths over that period the Pit bull and Rottweiler committed almost 60%. It's very unlikely that those two dogs are 60% of the population, thus they are hugely overrepresented in human DBRF.

Purebred
Pit bull-type
Rottweiler
German Shepherd Dog
Husky-type
Malamute
Doberman Pinscher
Chow Chow
Great Dane
Saint Bernard

Preventing harm to others is a reasonable application of force in this case.

Posted by: DJ | 2009-04-23 3:41:08 PM


Those statistics do not correlate with the ones I found at this site, DJ, on page 1.

Every year, backyard swimming pools cause the deaths of 250 children under the age of five in America. Compare that to 23 people of all ages killed by all dog attacks combined in 2008. Should we ban backyard pools, too?

Do us a favour: Argue you own points. Don't be a quote queen and expect the cherry-picked sound bites of activist others to do it for you. You should have known to steer clear of that one when it used the words "it is extremely unlikely..." That's their way of saying they didn't check, and don't care to.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 3:51:01 PM


Shane

Not sure i've seen any studies on swimming pools that were bred to kill. Will let you know when i come across one.

Posted by: B Clarkson | 2009-04-23 4:25:01 PM


Ban the pit bulls! They are dangerous! Why are we even discussing this simplistic issue? People need guns for protection. A dog is not a necessity. If I want to see a dog or cat then I'll visit a Chinese restaurant.

Posted by: Nico | 2009-04-23 4:28:00 PM


I agree with No Commies @ 2009-04-23 9:36:20 AM.

I own American Spaniels and it is irrelevant that spaniels bite more often as Shane puts forward.

Pit bulls, have been bread to have the most powerful bite of any breed of dog, coupled with size, and in addition they had been bread to absorb and disregard pain.

This breed was not bread for pets, it was not bread for guard dogs or working dogs or attack dogs that respond to command.
The pit bull was bread as a canine gladiator and as such has no place in the modern humane society.

Get that? When a pit bull, a breed which has no other purpose as a breed than to fight other dogs in a pit to the death, bites, the pit bull has more crushing and ripping strength than any other breed plus when you are trying to get the dog off of an attack, it is least responsive because it ignores pain the most.

And if anyone is wondering why they are a "bull" dog, bull dogs were bread for bull baiting, which means attacking bulls instead of other dogs in a corral instead of a pit.

Why did they put pit bulls in a pit to fight other dogs instead of a corral?

So that the spectators wouldn't be attacked in the frenzy that the dogs go into when they attack.

Posted by: Speller | 2009-04-23 5:06:31 PM


Not sure i've seen any studies on swimming pools that were bred to kill. - Original purpose is irrelevant. Knives were originally designed to kill, too, but I'm betting you don't cut your meat with a saw.

Appeal to emotion = you lose.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 5:10:24 PM


A dog is not a necessity. If I want to see a dog or cat then I'll visit a Chinese restaurant. - You do realize, of course, that they don't show you the whole, live dog before they kill it, clean it, and put it, sizzling, on your plate?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 5:11:50 PM


B - counter: not every pit bull is capable of killing. Every gun (pellet guns not withstanding) is capable of killing.

Again, if you are all for banning things that could, potentially, be dangerous, then again, we disagree and there probably isn't much I can say to convince you. I think it's an affront to liberty and a move that deflects the blame from where it belongs in either situation - on the irresponsible owner.

All I've been trying to point out with my comments is that if you are in favour of allowing people to own guns without jumping through legal hoops, but want certain breeds of dogs banned because you feel uncomfortable with them, then you've got some inconsistencies to explain.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-23 5:26:11 PM


"A dog is not a necessity.
Posted by: Nico | 2009-04-23 4:28:00 PM"

I really hate this point. It is completely irrelevant.

Dogs aren't a necessity. That's true. Neither is an iPod. Neither is chocolate sauce on my vanilla ice cream. But even if my dog could bite you and I could be oblivious to the fact because I'm deafening myself with my iPod and clogging my arteries with an ice cream sundae, it doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to have any of those things. I should, on the other hand, be charged and held completely responsible for the situation, should it occur.

And if "guns are necessary" for defense, what about those who don't wish to own a gun for defense, but only for hunting? Should these gun owners be harassed by the law because they are indulging in luxuries that could be dangerous?

Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-23 5:31:38 PM


B - further:

"When guns grow legs and charge about neighbourhoods shooting people i'll concede the comparison."

What about when someone breaks into your house and takes your gun because you owned it and therefore it was available?

"When a child inadvertantly steps into a back yard and a gun jumps out of storage and shoots him i'll concede the point."

What about when a child indavertantly steps into their parents closet and finds the gun and injures themself?

"When a pit bull or rottie owner tearfully explains how good and well behaved their bred for violence dog is usually so good with kids and that the child in hospital with half her scalp ripped off must have provoked it"

Again with the child-who-found-the-gun story. Same deal. These are the exact arguments used by gun control advocates.

And finally, and perhaps most gloriously:

"Not sure i've seen any studies on swimming pools that were bred to kill. Will let you know when i come across one."

How about guns? Can I assume you'd be happy with banning them now?

And an aside:
"The last rottie that got loose in our neighbourhood was tazered 4 times by the police and it didn't even slow it down. Of course they then shot it and of course the owner and fellow travellers accused the police of excessive force."

If the dog escaped and was attacking people it should have been shot if tasers couldn't control it and the owner should have been charged with negligence if anyone was hurt or propoerty was damaged. There is nothing in this (generic scare) story that suggests to me that rottweilers should be banned.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-23 5:39:32 PM


Do us a favour Shane and read the argument before posting nonsensical replies.

"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

Posted by: DJ | 2009-04-23 5:50:24 PM


The ignorance in some of the posts is staggering.

These are the facts in Canada

There is NO National Bite registry in Canada.

The ONLY dog bite Study in Canada is the CHIRPP cited by the OVMA at the Committee hearings into Bill 132.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/2005-01-24_M009.htm#P672_181318

A snippet of the OVMA testimony
[quote]....An argument is sometimes made that, while all dogs bite, only a few breeds cause serious injury when they attack. Again, this hypothesis does not withstand scrutiny. A study by the Canadian hospitals injury reporting and prevention program examined the dog breeds involved in attacks that were serious enough that the victim sought medical attention at one of eight reporting hospitals. The study revealed that 50 different types of purebreds and 33 types of crossbreeds had been involved in the attacks,

*****the most common breeds being German shepherds, cocker spaniels, Rottweilers and golden retrievers.

What about the most serious of attacks, those resulting in the death of a person attacked? Since 1983, there have been 23 reported human fatalities in Canada due to dog attacks. A total of 55 dogs were involved in these attacks, and only one of these dogs, an American Staffordshire terrier, would be banned under the proposed legislation......[/quote]

The CHIRPP Study
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/chirpp/pdf/CHIRPP_INJURY_BRIEF_DOG_BITE_update.pdf

Fatal Dog Attacks in Canada 1990-2007
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2387261

This is what the CDC and AVMA have said about the U.S. Study cited by B. Clarkson

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bite-studies/

CDC Statement about this Study
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/avma-cdc-2008-final.pdf


[quote].....“[The study] does not identify specific breeds that
are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not
appropriate for policy-making decisions related to
the topic… There is currently no accurate way to
identify the number of dogs of a particular breed,
and consequently no measure to determine which
breeds are more likely to bite or kill.”
- Centers for Disease Control Statement
“In contrast to what has been reported in the news
media, the data....CANNOT be used to infer any
breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities…”
- AVMA Statement...[/quote]


AVMA Statement about this Study
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/avma-letter.pdf

[quote].....In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data contained
within this report CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog
bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be
more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report). To
obtain such risk information it would be necessary to know the numbers of each
breed currently residing in the United States. Such information is not available.....[/quote]

The truth of the matter is that Premier Dalton McGuinty lied about this issue and attempted to take the heat off his Gov`t on other issues by mounting this hysterical campaign against some VERY rare Breeds and mutts that simply look like them.

The former AG of Ontario was unable to pick out one of the recognized Breeds that he banned in Ontario from this group of 26 Pure Breed dogs.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v4.swf

This law NEVER had ANYTHING to do with Public Safety.

All Canadians better hope this law is overturned at the SCC because the Ontario Superior Court Ruling is not about this imaginary 'pit bull' breed.

It states that Gov`t doesn`t need to have definitive evidence to enact Legislation and Courts don`t need to resolve conflicting evidence.

It`s called "reasoned harm"

If that ruling doesn`t scare the heck out of intelligent,informed Canadians nothing will!

Their Gov`t can ban ANYTHING based on that ruling....red cars,bicycles,cows,etc.....you name it.

Ontario has a Liar running the Province and I see he has duped a lot of people using that scary slang term 'pit bull'.

I wonder if it`s the 50% who put him back in office because they were too damn lazy to get off the couch and vote in Ontario.

McGuinty is costing taxpayers millions as he continues to defend his lies about 3 very rare Pure Breed dogs in Court.

BTW here`s a couple of the latest mutts in Ontario that have been deemed Gov`t 'pit bulls'.
http://wagthedog.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/3/17/4125811.html

Take a real good look at your mutt.You may own an Ontario Gov`t 'pit bull'.

All Canadian Citizens should be entitled to the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.
Ontario dog owners are being presumed guilty due simply to the look of their dog.

The only thing dangerous in Ontario is their Premier and if this Law is allowed to stand,it opens up the door to this nonsense in the rest of Canada and there will be NOTHING you can do about it.

Travel alerts have been issued for Ontario around the World because of the craziness of their law and the danger to visitors with dogs.
http://www.dogfriendly.com/server/newsletters/bslontario.shtml

Wake up Canadians and learn the truth and the facts before it`s too late.

Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-23 5:52:15 PM


"Responsible pitbull owner" is an oxymoron. The fact that you own a big scary dog, be it pitbull, rottweiler, or akita, is proof positive that you shouldn't own one. You are a snivelling coward, that gets enjoyment out of scaring some people.

I had a run in with 2 rottwielers at work once. They thought they were going to pull me down, but I got to my truck and grabbed my 870. One of them got away, and its owner knew it was me who killed the other. He had plenty of opportunities to try and do something about it, but didn't have the balls.

I had to pepper spray my neighbour's husky last fall. It was in my yard, and when I yelled at it, it took a run at me. I caught it in its own yard, and gave it a spicy blast. The owner had every opportunity to do something about it, but I guess he prefers to let his dog do his fighting for him.

Ban them, jail anyone whose dog attacks a child. Destroy every dog that presents a clear danger to people, especially children. Letting pitbull owners have a say is like letting herion addicts influence drug laws.

This Hillier guy is an obvious mental case.

Posted by: dp | 2009-04-23 6:19:38 PM


I love your comment, Fear the Premier of Ontario.

I think that settles the issue.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-04-23 6:23:41 PM


Pit bulls, have been bread to have the most powerful bite of any breed of dog, coupled with size, and in addition they had been bread to absorb and disregard pain.

Original intent is irrelevant; see above.

This breed was not bread for pets, it was not bread for guard dogs or working dogs or attack dogs that respond to command.

Does that make them untrainable? Yes or no?

The pit bull was bread as a canine gladiator and as such has no place in the modern humane society.

Opinion, not fact.

Get that? When a pit bull, a breed which has no other purpose as a breed than to fight other dogs in a pit to the death, bites, the pit bull has more crushing and ripping strength than any other breed plus when you are trying to get the dog off of an attack, it is least responsive because it ignores pain the most.

This is sensationalist tripe. A strong jaw and a robust constitution do not make a dog more likely to attack someone. It has also been several centuries since such dogs were fought in numbers sufficient to justify continuation of the breed on that basis alone, and for it to have survived into the 21st century with no other marketable traits is simply not feasible. Honestly, did you even think before you wrote this hysterical drivel?

And if anyone is wondering why they are a "bull" dog, bull dogs were bread for bull baiting, which means attacking bulls instead of other dogs in a corral instead of a pit.

Yes. I’m sure millions of satisfied bulldog owners have devoted their every waking moment to pondering just that.

Why did they put pit bulls in a pit to fight other dogs instead of a corral? So that the spectators wouldn't be attacked in the frenzy that the dogs go into when they attack.

Or so they wouldn’t be gored and trampled by the bulls.

I hope everyone on this blog was paying very careful attention to this effort by Speller, because it epitomizes exactly the kind of alarmist prattle that is used as justification for taking away our liberties. Because most people think more by emotion than by logic, such paranoia often spreads like wildfire. It's the rhetorical equivalent of shouting fire in a theatre.

This is exactly why you should NEVER trust anyone who argues with emotion. When it comes to determining objective truth, feelings are worth zero. And a million times zero is still zero.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 6:25:03 PM


P.S. And the word you were struggling so mightily to spell is "bred," genius. Four whole letters. "Bread" is something you spread butter on.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 6:26:04 PM


"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

Define "his own good." And then, prove that breed bans save lives. If you manage it, you will be the first.

And furthermore, against the number of people attacked by such dogs as this must be balanced the number of home invasions thwarted by their simple presence, a number we will never know but is certainly more than 23 per year.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 6:31:42 PM


The fact that you own a big scary dog, be it pitbull, rottweiler, or akita, is proof positive that you shouldn't own one.

No, it isn't. Owning something doesn't constitute proof of anything other than ownership. And "scariness" derives from personality and behaviour, not breed or size. A 300-pound mastiff who puts his nose half an inch from your plate and gives you the "big sad eyes" treatment while he waits patiently for a treat is a lot less "scary" than a Dobermann one-fourth that size who charges you with bared teeth and murder in his eyes.

My experience with large dogs does not mirror yours. I once had an enormous golden lab stand patiently and let me, a perfect stranger he had never seen before that day, give him a bath. (I was house-sitting with a friend.) You don't like dogs; that much is obvious. But I'm willing to bet you didn't have much use for their owners either.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 6:41:14 PM


P.S. The average Staffordshire terrier weighs about 40 pounds. That's half the weight of a Labrador retriever and a fifth the weight of a Saint Bernard.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 6:46:33 PM


Shane, Janet,

Predictable response re kids and guns. However, once again, a properly stored gun cannot grow legs and present itself to someone who can suffer by it's misconduct. (yes, I know a gun is an inanimate object; that's kinda the point.)Spare me any references to chain tethers and fences, these things have been known to jump through windows for God's sake as well as break their tethers.
Also, Janet, spare me the pious assertion that the owner of the rogue rottweiler was liable to prosecution. A person who murders someone with a gun is liable to prosecution under the full force of the law and faces serious jail time. An owner of one of these dear beasts faces a miniscule fine and often has his dog returned.
I'd be willing to concede your ownership of one or more of these darlings if you would be criminally liable for any mayhem they may cause and face corresponding penalties to be imposed as if you were the perpetrator of the assault. To be clear, I mean criminal assault charges not civil. It would probably result in a lesser rate of ownership but i'm pretty sure the remaining owners would take all due care and attention to the security of their pets. In a similar vein, I am for ownership of guns for protection given that, in law, you are already liable for the misuse of said firearms.
That being said, i'm guessing that considering Canada's lack of property rights, you'd be more likely to not be charged if your dog killed or maimed an invader than if you shot him with a legally registered firearm.
And Shane, quibling about a commenter's spelling mistakes does not constitute debate.

Posted by: B Clarkson | 2009-04-23 6:59:16 PM


B. Clarkson, who are you to concede anyone's right to do anything? The evidence on the table does not support breed-specific legislation, and not all the high-falutin' hand-wringin' in the world is going to change that. Seizing the moral high ground in lieu of presenting convincing proof does not constitute debate either. All you have is your outrage. And your outrage is not worth one crumbling, age-whitened dachshund turd.

P.S. There are two "b's" in "quibbling."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 7:21:51 PM


[quote]Letting pitbull owners have a say is like letting herion addicts influence drug laws.[/quote]

dp

How do you feel about letting people who get their "facts" from the Media (or lying Politicians) have a say?

You apparently have yet to figure out that there is no such Breed as a 'pit bull'

And I highly doubt that you have read the Ontario law or the committee hearings into Bill 132 where all Experts testified against this Ban.

I suggest that you take the time to read the fact based links that have been provided if you have any real interest in this issue.

It`s not just 'pit bull' owners or even dog owners who understand that this law must be overturned or repealed.
Any thinking informed Canadian that has taken the time to research the facts would not support this law.

In case you`re interested in actually reading this law that you`re commenting on,here it is.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90d16_e.htm

Ontario already had a Dog Owners Liability Act.

There was no need to make it Breed Specific and if you`ve even bothered to read the links I posted previously,you should be asking yourself why they would target the 3 named Breeds and dogs that look like them if this had been a Public Safety issue and if Breed Bans actually worked to reduce dog bites?

Wouldn`t it have made more sense to target German Shepherds,Rottweilers,Cocker Spaniels,Golden Retrievers and Huskies?

Of course those Breeds aren`t "dangerous" either.
And Breed bans target the wrong end of the leash.

There are no "dangerous" Breeds and there are no "safe' Breeds.There are dogs and the majority of dogs of all Breeds/types are incredibly safe.

An individual can also be charged under the Criminal code if their dog harms someone.

This law was introduced for Political reasons,not for Public Safety reasons.

Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-23 9:21:59 PM


Shane- I don't hate dogs. I grew up with dogs. I've been really turned off, these past few years, by people who try to feel tough by owning a tough dog. There are hundreds of them in Alberta. They all look exactly the same, drive the same dodge 4X4, have the same bigass rottweiler, and have the same attitude.

There's a real canine catch-22 when it comes to owning a perceived dangerous breed. If you really want one of those dogs, you shouldn't be allowed to own one. If you don't really like them, as I don't, then you're well suited to own one. The person who isn't all excited over them will be less likely to produce a mean one.

Think of it this way; If someone really wants to buy a fully automatic "assault rifle", would you consider that person to be of the right temperament to own one? Probably not. The guy who's not comfortable owning one will probably never shoot up a post office.

As for the aggresive breed theory, is it so hard to believe an animal has a genetic code? Some people think a dog is like a radio controlled model plane. When it gets too far away from you, it shuts itself off. Dogs aren't like that. They have fairly complicated thoughts. They can survive on their own. When they get into a group, they can be deadly. Acreage owners are notorious for not knowing what their dogs do during the day. Then they wonder why the farmer down the road shot poor old rover.

Anyway, my kids are grown up now, so it's only your own kids that will end up mutilated, or dead. I can't work myself up any more. Bad stuff happens.

Posted by: dp | 2009-04-23 9:59:57 PM


Fear the Premier of Ontario
Great post.
Just another stupid law to placate the gullible.

Posted by: peterj | 2009-04-23 10:06:52 PM


You're not making sense, dp. Your basic premise is that only people who don't want something should be allowed to own it. That's like saying that only people who ride the bus should be allowed to own cars. I think what you're trying to say is that you should want to own the dog/gun/whatever for the right reason, not that you shouldn't want to own one at all.

Yes, dogs have a genetic code. So do humans. And certain individuals are predisposed towards certain behaviours. That means that, given the right circumstances, they're more likely to develop them. However, if they are properly raised, they make just as good companions and working dogs. They're not automatically doomed to a life of nutbaggery from the moment the sperm hits the egg unless something is actually wrong.

P.S. If I did go postal, I'd use an axe, a sword, or some other "cold" weapon. Guns are too impersonal.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 10:18:04 PM


The owners of pitbulls are losers. I have never seen an exception. This is likely the only ban I find very hard to oppose.

Posted by: Realist | 2009-04-23 10:24:37 PM


Marijuana smokers are losers. I have never seen an exception. Beware the temptation to restrict a person's liberty because you don't like him, Realist.

I oppose marijuana legalization because mood-altering drugs, even "soft" ones, can be very destructive to family and society, and offer no countervailing benefit. Pit bulls, on the other hand, provide guardians and companions and only a minute fraction of one percent ever cause any problems at all. If only the same could be said for the average motorist.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-23 10:49:36 PM


Ah dp

You`re from Alberta?
Interesting.

Calgary,Alberta has a world renowned Animal Control program.
Their law is actually called the Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/cityclerks/23m2006.pdf


It is fully funded by revenue from licensing and fines.
They have 90-95% compliance with licensing as compared to an average of ~ 10% elsewhere.

You can read more about it on this U.S. Blog
http://btoellner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/calgary-provide.html

They announced this year that dog attacks have fallen to the lowest level in 25 years despite the fact that some of Ontario`s "dangerous" dogs have been shipped West and have been adopted out by Rescues.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Life/Calgary+attacks+fall+lowest+level+years/1313555/story.html

They have NO Breed Specific Legislation.
They target irresponsible owners regardless of the Breed/type or look of the dog.
They have hefty fines for non compliance which increases for repeat offenders.

Bill Bruce of Calgary is in great demand.
He will help set up working proven programs.

Here he is in Santa Barbara California talking about his program.
2 hrs long but worth watching.
http://sbcounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=766&publish_id=&event_id=

The Ontario Gov`t refused to allow Bill Bruce to testify at the committee hearings into the 'pit bull' ban
They weren`t interested in working solutions to reduce dog bites.

Does that make you question this ban or question the motives of the Liberal Premier?

Along with Ontario`s "dangerous" dogs being shipped to Calgary,they`re also being shipped to Quebec,the East coast and at least 1 has gone to the States where he is a working K9 Explosives Detection dog for Homeland Security.
http://www.lawdogsusa.org/k9neville.html

Does allowing the transfer of "dangerous" dogs to other areas make you question the Premier`s motives or the legitimacy of this Ban?

[quote]is it so hard to believe an animal has a genetic code?[/quote]

Actually dp the Canine genome has just fairly recently been sequenced.
http://research.nhgri.nih.gov/dog_genome/

Are you attempting to suggest that aggression in dogs is genetic based?

There is no evidence to suggest that.

In fact here are a few comments from the Scientific community about genetics and "dangerous" Breeds.

http://www.dapbt.org/research.htm
[quote]

"The classification of dog breeds with respect to their relative danger to humans makes no sense, as both, the complex antecedent conditions in which aggressive behavior occurs, and its ramifying consequences in the individual dog's ecological and social environment are not considered" (Dr. Fedderson-Peterson, 2001).

"An important practical problem that any breed-specific legislation raises is adjoining an individual dog to a particular breed, which is scientifically impossible" (Dr. Wagner 2002)

"The genetic differences between a Chihuahua, a German shepherd and even a timber wolf are virtually non-existent and the behavioral differences in breeds has more to do with training than breeding" (DN 2001).


"Although they look different, dog breeds have no more scientific basis than do races among humans" (Dr. Serpell 2001).

[/quote]

You do realize that Dogs all belong to the same species?
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus_familiaris.html


Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-23 11:17:15 PM


"The genetic differences between a Chihuahua, a German shepherd and even a timber wolf are virtually non-existent and the behavioral differences in breeds has more to do with training than breeding" (DN 2001).


"Although they look different, dog breeds have no more scientific basis than do races among humans" (Dr. Serpell 2001).

This is all crap of course. Humans share 99% of their DNA with mice. To the naked eye, it's almost impossible to tell them apart.

Swimming pools here are not running around the streets drowning people. Maybe it's a Vancouver thing.

Posted by: DJ | 2009-04-23 11:41:41 PM


[quote]

The owners of pitbulls are losers. .....[/quote]

SAR Pits
http://www.forpitssake.org/sar.html

K9 Pits
http://www.lawdogsusa.org/lawdogs.html

Pits with Titles
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/hall_of_fame.cfm

Kids with Pits
http://www.maxtheshelterdog.com/kidsforpits.html

Therapy Pits
Ontario Therapy Dog
http://www.advocatesfortheunderdog.com/downloads/Hersheys-Kisses-media.pdf

Therapy Dog-Rescued Vick Fight Bust Dog
http://ourpack.org/leo.html

Therapy Dog-Another rescued Vick Fight Bust Dog
http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=53&a=388967

Owners of the Rescued Vick Fight Bust dogs
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0812/nfl.michael.vicks.dogs/content.1.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/12/22/vick.dogs/

National Champion Pit Bull
http://www.pitbullunited.com/wallacethepitbull/

Wallace in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQYC5Zte1Rg&

"Criminal" Pit Bull Owners?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9UCYoCzDoU&

Families with Pit Bulls
http://server.inalbum.com/show/jodipreis/Message_to_the_Media2.html?296033009

Photos from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada
http://www.staffordcanada.com/photo_album/family_photos/index.html

American Stafforshire Terrier Club of Canada
http://www.amstaffclubofcanada.ca/funphotos.htm


[quote]....I have never seen an exception[/quote]

Now you have.
Dogs don`t choose their owners

Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-23 11:46:09 PM


DNA identifies dog breed with 99 percent accuracy

By MARK DERR
New York Times News Service
May. 20, 2004 05:40 PM

In a study that alters conventional wisdom and paves the way for a better understanding of canine behavior and evolution, scientists say they have found genetic variations that allow them to distinguish between 85 different dog breeds and to identify an individual dog's breed with 99 percent accuracy.

Posted by: DJ | 2009-04-23 11:48:46 PM


[quote]This is all crap of course.[/quote]

Love those "factual" posts which cite sources.

[quote]Swimming pools here are not running around the streets drowning people. Maybe it's a Vancouver thing. [/quote]

Dogs aren`t running around killing people.
Canine Fatalities are so rare that they are considered to be statistically insignificant although they are tragic when they do happen.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2387261

[quote]...In Canada, 1 to 2 human deaths a year, on average, can be attributed to dog attacks (1,2), a statistic that is comparable with the annual average of 15 deaths in the United States (1–3). Further systematic information is lacking on dog attacks and related fatalities in Canada. ......[/quote]

Mortality Tables from StatsCan
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=84F0209XWE&lang=eng

2005
Deaths by accidental drowning in BC 27
Deaths by accidental drowning in Canada 267

Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-24 12:24:21 AM


Re DNA tests
Canine Fatality Investigator
http://www.canineaggression.org/

[quote]...Sure, there are those new DNA tests that are being sold to “..tell you the breed makeup of your dog…”, but the genetic scientists I have spoken too generously call those tests “well marketed consumer products.” In other words in the scientific class of those late night infomercial products.[/quote]

Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-24 12:31:22 AM


This is all crap of course. Humans share 99% of their DNA with mice. To the naked eye, it's almost impossible to tell them apart.

If you find it hard to tell apart either two DNA molecules, or a man and a mouse, DJ, I suppose I'll just have to accept that. You are referring to the infamous "junk" DNA that does not actually do anything. It consists of the accumulated genetic baggage of 300 million years of evolution and apparently makes up the great majority of the molecule. Nevertheless, genetics does work. All dogs belong to a single species, Canis familiaris. And all dogs, large and small, can be aggressive and dangerous if they are badly brought up. Rather like humans, actually.

Swimming pools here are not running around the streets drowning people. Maybe it's a Vancouver thing.

Despite what you seem to think, in Vancouver at least we do not have packs of feral dogs roaming the streets at all hours, howling at the Moon and baying for blood. The great majority of attacks happen not in public places but on someone's property. So we'll do without the drama, thank you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-24 6:19:45 AM


"Letting pitbull owners have a say is like letting herion addicts influence drug laws.

Posted by: dp | 2009-04-23 6:19:38 PM"

Yeah, next thing you know they'll be letting patients have a say in health care or parents have a say in education. Insanity!

Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-24 7:09:35 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.