The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Hillier would repeal the pit bull ban
Randy 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
OK. Let's all admit that in a free country the paragons of society with their tasteful tattoos have, and indeed should have, the right to own and keep such cuddly little balls of fur as pit bulls, rotties et al. As I have stated before, let's just institute legislation whereby. when or if darling Fifi mauls an innocent, the owner is criminally liable for the assault and subject to a penalty more severe than a nuisance fine. Win-win. The owner gets to watch their dog make with the sad eye at the supper table shtick and the rest of us can relax in the assurance that, should the neighbourhood cockapoo rip someones face off, the owner will suffer legal consequences and penalties commensurate with the crime.
Final regards on this issue,
(Fawnix werked four me)
Posted by: B Clarkson | 2009-04-24 9:42:51 AM
I'm beginning to wonder whether a person's general outlook on life can be to some extent predicted based on whether they like dogs or not.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-24 10:17:57 AM
[quote]As I have stated before, let's just institute legislation whereby. when or if darling Fifi mauls an innocent, the owner is criminally liable for the assault and subject to a penalty more severe than a nuisance fine. Win-win.[/quote]
That`s only a win-win if ALL dog owners(regardless of Breed/type/look) are held accountable,responsible and to the same standard for the behavior of their dogs and are subject to the same penalties.
Otherwise you are saying that victims of other dogs are somehow less worthy.
Does it matter what the dog looks like or what Breed it might be when it bites someone?
Don`t the circumstances matter?
How about the owner`s history?
Have they owned 10 dogs that have bitten people?
Leave responsible dog owners alone regardless of what they own and go after the people who allow their dogs(regardless of Breed/type) to be a problem in the community.
And penalties must focus on the owner not the dog unless it truly is a dangerous dog.
Biting doesn`t mean it`s a dangerous dog.
If they could talk,I`m sure most would choose that option.
As I previously stated there was already a dangerous dog law(DOLA) which targeted owners and they could also be charged under the criminal code.
That`s why this so called 'pit bull' legislation was obviously politically motivated and had nothing to do with Public Safety.
Here are 2 children killed by dogs in Canada.
Charges were not filed in either case.
Neither child was killed by a 'Pit Bull' Breed or even a Media tagged 'pit bull'
In fact a child has NEVER been killed by a 'Pit Bull' Breed or a pit type dog in Canada.
1 adult has been killed by a dog purported to be an American Staffordshire Terrier and it was a provoked attack.
Courtney Trempe was killed by a Mastiff
James Waddell was killed by his father`s Rottweilers
The Gov`t doesn`t care about Public Safety.
This Ban was never about Public Safety.
They ignored all but a few of the Inquest recommendation for those 2 children.
Were they killed by the "wrong" dogs to suit the Liberals?
Couldn`t use those kids to justify this Ban so they had to use the Media to cause hysteria over non offending Breeds and sensationalize any incident involving a dog with a certain look?
Please figure it out Boom.
They had ulterior motives.
The Liberals should be selling used cars.
They did a great job of selling the 'pit bull' ban to you.
Read the links that have been posted Boom.
There`s a reason they`re called Fiberals.
Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-24 11:20:36 AM
[quote....]Compare that to 23 people of all ages killed by all dog attacks combined in 2008. Should we ban backyard pools, too?[/quote]
Shane that`s an American Statistic.
Canada has ~1 per year and fortunately there has been none for at least 2 years now(possibly a bit longer)
I believe there have been 3 fatalities since McGuinty took office.
None were by the dogs he loves to hate BTW
Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-24 11:35:44 AM
Yes, Fear, I know. Which makes this ban all the more ridiculous. I chose American stats because they provide a larger data sample.
Some years back, Stephen Hume penned a similarly hysterical column calling dog bites the number-one health concern among Canadian children (hardly!) and calling for any dog found off a leash to be shot on the spot and its owner fined. It just goes to show you the a person can be a university professor and still be a moron.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-24 11:57:04 AM
Yeah and you can also be a grade school graduate and be wise and well educated because you continue to learn and keep your mind open and you don`t let others lead you around by the nose.
Hopefully the SCC will agree to hear this and kill it.
Will still continue to educate the ones being led around by the nose hoping that they soon "get it" and demand that their Gov`t repeal it.
I would think they would want the millions being wasted on this Court Challenge and the millions it`s costing to enforce it to go towards Health Care,Education and the care of elderly Parents.
It`s their money being spent on this witch hunt.
I don`t think some people understand that.
It`s not coming out of the Premier`s pocket,it`s coming out of the pocket of each and every Canadian.
Ontario is actually a "have not" Province this year.Feds have to help out more.
I wonder why?
I believe I read somewhere that it`s costing in the neighborhood of $165,000 to prosecute each owner that fights the allegation that they own a 'pit bull'
I hope more Ontario dog owners start fighting back.
Maybe the cost of this witch hunt will wake up Canadians.
Don`t complain when your kids don`t have text books or you`re waiting for an MRI Canadians.
McGuinty is busy "protecting" people from "dangerous" dogs,he doesn`t have time or cash for that other stuff.
Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-24 12:51:15 PM
FtPoO- You can babble on all you want, but there's really only one thing you need to know. If you let your stinking filthy child killer dog any where near me, I WILL KILL IT.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-24 2:49:17 PM
And if he then kills you? I would.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-24 2:55:21 PM
[quote]...You can babble on all you want,...[/quote]
I don`t a
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
(I highly doubt that you have ever seen one of those Breeds.)
or even a mutt that you or anyone else could remotely tag a 'pit bull'
I own the Breed that did this.
and "babbling on" is what you are doing.
Perhaps you should consider running for the Ontario Liberals.
I think you must have other issues that account for your misdirected anger.
I guess you`ll now have to hate ALL Retrievers and their owners.
If I were you I`d babble less,read more and get help with your anger issues.
Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-24 3:15:19 PM
You're not normally this grumpy, dp. What's up?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-24 3:59:28 PM
Shane-I hope you didn't just make a death threat. Well, actually, I hope you did. It helps prove my position that dog owners are confused about the value of a dog's life.
In case nobody knows this, it isn't illegal to kill a dog. It's an animal, like a chicken, or a pig. I suppose someone could try to kill me for killing his dog, and maybe even succeed, you never know. It used to happen, when someone killed a working dog. These aren't working dogs
we're talking about here, they're image dogs. They're meant to bolster the owner's failed manhood. They get a reaction from people that the owner could never get on his own.
FtPoO-I don't have anger issues, I have asshole issues. Let me re-phrase that, I have issues with assholes. Wait, I'm digging myself in deeper. I have issues with dicks who like assholes. You know what I mean. I have issues when assholes and dicks get together and think they're smart.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-24 5:09:25 PM
"The pit bull was bread as a canine gladiator and as such has no place in the modern humane society."
Whoever posted this.....you have no idea what the pit bull was "bred" for and the fact that you refer to it as "bread" shows your lack of intelligence. They are not made of wheat.
The pit bull was raised to assist butcher's with bull baiting as well as to hunt hogs. Yes its a strong and determined dog. But as the AVMA study that was posted above states, BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION GOES AGAINST PUBLIC SAFETY BECAUSE ITS OVERBROAD AND TAKES RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE REAL CAUSE OF DOG BITES, THE OWNER. I love when people take stats out of context and dont even read the conclusion the CDC, AVMA, etc came to-that focusing on the breed doesnt work. Hey the Irish Wolfhoud was bred to hunt wolves and the Rhodesian Ridgeback for Lions-why arent you calling to ban THOSE dogs too?
I wonder how these idiots who say the pit bull can't be trusted-this breed of dog that was the most popular and trusted family pet in the early 1900's(the height of dogfiging btw)- rationalize that nearly EVERY animal behaviour expert, veterinarian, safety organization(CDC, Canada Safety Council) says the breed is NOT the issue.
Going to buy a loaf of "bread" now.
Posted by: Kristy | 2009-04-24 6:28:54 PM
You know what they say
"You can lead a horse to water but......"
If anyone else happens to "get it" now and you care about your rights.
It`s not about the right to own a certain dog.
Contact the Premier of Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario whether or not you live in Ontario or even in Canada.
Tell them you want Bill 132 repealed.
They will send you a standard nonsense form letter stating that it was all about Public Safety.
Make sure that they know you know the TRUTH.
Read the links posted BEFORE you write and I would send them these 2 links in your letter
The OVMA testimony prior to the Ban
highlight this part below
[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]
and this one
Fatal Attacks in Canada
Premier Dalton McGuinty
Attorney General Chris Bentley
Make sure you cc at least the following people
Leader of the Opposition
Minister of Tourism for Ontario
Hon. Monique Smith
(This law prevents you from entering Ontario not only with 3 named Breeds but with a suspect mutt or cross breed-you can no longer even drive through Ontario.Meaning you can`t drive from one coast to another in Canada because you can`t pass through Ontario with a mutt that might fall under this vague law)
Minister of Immigration
Hon. Jason Kenney
(That`s right,this law prevents people from immigrating to Ontario,Canada with 3 Breeds and any mutt or cross Breed that looks a certain way.Of course they have the option of killing the family pet or leaving it behind.Would you?)
Contact info here
This isn`t just Ontario`s problem.
Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-25 10:33:41 AM
Ha Ha. Listen to the repeated canned nonsense about the centre for disease control study which is completely bogus and they have admitted it. People still repeat this crap over and over again as well the the locking jaw and the dogs have only one purpose. Explain to me the three deaths of babies in the past year by Jack Russell Terriers, one in the Uk and two in the US. Get a grip! United Kennel Club dog number two is The American Pit Bull Terrier, number eight is the Labrador Retriever. The are both wonderful breeds. I don't pay any heed to this bull. You can't change a racist.
Posted by: LiNDA CAREY | 2009-04-26 9:47:13 PM
Speller sweety, maybe you and your dog have no place in human society. You can dish it out, then suck it up.
Posted by: LiNDA CAREY | 2009-04-26 9:50:13 PM
Realist sweety, who ya hangin out with if you have been seeing the losers. Says something about yourself I think. I am a middle aged female with a fairly good income, fair amount of equity and live in a very nice community. Sorry about your luck.
Posted by: LiNDA CAREY | 2009-04-26 10:00:05 PM
Did you notice in the past four years that people who own pit bull type dogs are spoken to very abusively, no downright abusively that is, but the minute we start standing up for ourselves, well all hell breaks lose. Another thing, don't try to tell me about pit bulls after my arm was just about ripped off by an English Springer spaniel as a child. I don't buy it. Your damn right I am disappointed in the Fiberals abuse of power.
Posted by: LiNDA CAREY | 2009-04-26 10:07:23 PM
Shane, that is a very good point about people's outlook on life. It makes so sense where as the hate crimes against dog owners makes none.
Posted by: LiNDA CAREY | 2009-04-27 10:56:34 AM
"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.
YOU are an idiot!!!
I am a 60 yr old single woman. I have an American Pitbull terrier and two German Shepherds. I`m not a criminal, a drug dealer, a thug or a thief and I don`t own a gun. I volunteer with an animal rescue group. I have my dogs because I love them. They love me back. If you choose to break into my home, you may not leave. The dogs will bar the door while I call the police. If you hit my dogs, they will bite you. If you hit me , they will bite you.
My dogs are gentle and loving with everyone they meet . Thats the way I raised them.
I drive a van so we can all go for a ride together.
I am far from being a coward. My dogs are on leash when not in my house or yard. I also clean up after them. I am a responsible pet owner and I live in Ontario. Mr Hillier will get my vote.I`m tired of being told what to do and when to do it by the present little snot thats running this broken province.The BSL does nothing to protect the population from the irresponsible owners of any dog. Thanks Shane for producing facts instead of `media repeats`.
Posted by: Heather B | 2009-04-27 4:15:49 PM
This is EXACTLY why you can`t believe a damn thing that the Media reports about 'pit bulls'.
The 2 stories mentioned below were picked up Nationally and I wouldn`t be surprised if they were picked up Internationally.
Hundreds,if not thousand`s of comments posted by "experts" on forums.
[quote]Dogs involved in bitings were NOT pit bulls
Two dogs that attacked people in separate incidents in Calgary in recent days were not pitbulls.
A dog that bit a woman and her child Friday night was a boxer cross.
And Bylaw Manager Bill Bruce says a much larger dog that attacked its owners early Monday morning and was tasered by police, was a rare presa canario, or spanish mastiff.
"They are an extremely powerful dog. They will protect. But like all dogs, the training and conditioning determines how they act."
Bruce says sometime in the next few days the dog will be assessed by a dog behaviourist while it remains at Animal Services, and the owners will be interviewed to help determine the circumstances of the attack.
He says typically, charges will not be laid if a dog bites its owners, but the dog could be required to wear a muzzle when out in public.[/quote]
It`s time for the Media to shut the hell-o up.
Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-04-27 4:18:10 PM
Yeh, Heather..don't take the abuse. It is like these little weasels crawl out of their little holes and spew out terrible things about people. I feel sorry for their negative outlook on life. Dalton Mcgoogy is one of those and so is his followers. Ontario's Liberal Gov't will go down as the Bill 132 masters of disaster. Most breed clubs do NOT support BSL. As a matter of fact it was them that helped us gather our last hundred thousand for court. True dog owners stick together.
Posted by: LiNDA CAREY | 2009-04-27 5:50:30 PM
I didn't threaten anyone, dp, and furthermore, I currently own no dogs. If I ever do get one, it'll be a sportsman's dog like a lab or a beagle, because that's my preference. I merely stated what I would do if someone slaughtered our family dog for no better reason than that it was what it was; no man worthy of the name would do less, yourself included.
And yes, killing a dog is illegal, unless you're defending yourself, your property, your livestock, or can claim some other excuse provided for in law. There have been significant police investigations after two recent illegal dog killings. In the first a yuppie couple foolishly let their dog off a leash in the trails of Pemberton while mountain biking, only to have it shot by "hunters." In the other, two "hunters" were crossing someone else's property on a Gulf island and blew the family puppy's head off with a shotgun in front of the children. I put "hunters" in quotes because, let's face it, what kind of hunter doesn't like dogs?
As for climbing out of the nice hole you've prepared for yourself on this issue, I hope you have a very tall ladder. You have not been rational or reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-27 7:05:15 PM
P.S. I've noticed that you can turn a dog of any breed into a vicious menace by leaving him tied to a chain or rope. Such is a common practice among the "assholes" you mention. They buy the dog for protection (pit bulls, Rottweilers and so forth are good for that), and leave it outside on a chain in all weathers, giving it the minimum of food, water, time, and attention they can get away with, and little if any love. Imagine if you raised a child that way; would you expect him to be well socialized? Decidedly not.
It's not the dogs; it's the owners. Nuff said.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-27 7:18:19 PM
It is not illegal to kill a dog.
It is illegal to be cruel to animals.
It is illegal to use a weapon within most cities.
It is illegal to destroy someone else's property.
If you use a humane method, and you aren't destroying someone's prized possession, you can kill dogs 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. You can sell the fur to specialty clothing makers, and the carcass to mink ranchers.
Vets, and shelters kill healthy dogs all the time for no other reason than no one wants to feed them. Farmers save the vet fees for the price of a bullet. Farmers shoot their neighbours dogs when they stray onto their land, and it rarely results in hard feelings. When you see a dog running loose in the bush, you are required, by law, to kill it. Dogs in packs are very hard on wildlife, and cattle.
Four people were attacked over the weekend in Calgary. Two of them were attacked by their own dog, which is actually heartwarming. Try as you might to claim otherwise, they were pit bulls. You people are sick fucks, and I'm done bantering.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-27 7:55:48 PM
Actually, dp, the dog doesn't have to be a "prized possession"; it simply has to have an owner. Stray dogs that cause nuisance can be dispatched humanely in rural areas. But when you luridly threaten to kill a dog in the company of, and under the direct supervision of its master, based on no greater provocation than that the dog is what it was born as, and has entered your field of vision, you put yourself beyond the pale of any law--to say nothing of any reasonable or rational concept of justice.
Is the dog threatening you? No.
Anyone else? No.
Threatening livestock? No.
Stray or feral? No.
Doing anything but accompanying its master and being what it is? No.
To shoot under those conditions is not only illegal, it's immoral. As for that law that says you must kill a dog running loose in the bush, I'd like to see that. Because it seems unlikely the police would bother to investigate a blatant case of a citizen obeying the law. The Pemberton incident took place in a recognized hunting area. So there are limits to the extent to which you can satisfy your blood lust even outside the city, dp.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-27 11:26:52 PM
Is the worst bite not one that causes death, since this obsurd ban there have been two fatalities in Ontario caused by dogs, one from a jack russell the other a shepherd/rottie mix. The media only writes about pit bull attacks and that is why the general public are so ignorant when it comes to dangerous dogs. Anyone that feels they or their children are safer from dogs if there are less pit bulls around is dreaming. Forward thinking places like the Netherlands and also Italy are revoking their breed bans because at the end of the day they don't protect the general public from dog attacks. Breed bans are a way for Politician's to mislead the general public that they are actually doing something under the guise of puplic safetly when in reality they're simply getting their names in the paper.
Posted by: Monika | 2009-04-28 12:17:12 PM
Shane- I've talked to many game wardens over the years. All of them agree that stray dogs, in the bush, must be put down. The only limiting factors are the provincial firearms regulations. Some provinces have banned buckshot, but they advise using aaa shot for dogs.
As for my "bloodlust", you're going beyond the boundaries of accepted social behaviour. When dog owners put the safety of my children at risk, I have every right to protect them. Dogs have been elevated to some sort of perverted worship status. Many owners consider them as valuable as their own children. This is an illness that needs to be dealt with.
If I owned a dog, and it threatened my children, I would be compelled to kill it. Anyone who doesn't think that way doesn't deserve to be called a parent.
A few years back, an acreage owner, near Grande Prairie lost a dog to a neighbouring farmer. This farmer had a habit of shooting every dog that came near his cattle. The owner called the police, and wanted them to do ballistics, arrest the farmer, and charge him with killing the dog. The RCMP informed her that; A) the police don't waste time and resources on the death of a dog, B) the dog was on the farmers property, C) the owners were guilty of allowing their dog to run loose, D) no law had been broken, since the killing of a dog is not illegal. The woman went into hysterics, and proclaimed that killing her dog was every bit as bad as killing one of her children. At that point the RCMP closed the case.
You obviously only spend the odd weekend in the bush, Shane. If you had ever lived in the country, you'd see the stupidity of your arguments. Dogs, in packs, are much worse than coyotes or wolves, because they have no fear of man. If confronted, they will sometimes attack. The best plan is to shoot, shovel, and shut up.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-28 1:31:02 PM
Actually, dp, there's no such thing as AAA shot. 000 buckshot, yes. AAA shot, no. On dogs anything down to #3 or #4 buck would do fine (and be much easier to find than 000 buck). Although personally, I prefer to use a .30-06 for varmints.
Note that there is a big difference between game wardens encouraging that feral dogs running loose in the bush be put down, and requiring that everyone do so when the opportunity presents; in the latter case, failure to do so would be an offence, as you stated earlier. Good luck proving that in court. That's like charging you with passing up a shot at a buck when there was no one there but you and the buck.
And the scenario you painted earlier did not put your children in danger. You threatened to kill the dog of another poster if he ever brought it into your vicinity, not if he ever let it run wild in your yard. And any badly socialized dog is a threat to children, just as any properly socialized one is not. For you to assume that a dog is a threat with no greater proof than its breed is simply irrational. Our Dobes passed up plenty of opportunities to bite strangers, children included. After all, if you bite someone, you don't get patted.
Feral dogs are a genuine problem; there was just a story about a pack of ravaging dogs led by a bulldog named Duke. (We know his name because he used to have a home.) One sheep farmer in particular is gunning for him, because he has lost all ten of his sheep. I never said that killing dogs to prevent livestock was not allowed; in fact, I encourage it. A feral dog is just another varmint, I agree.
But shooting, or even confronting without reason, a tagged and collared animal outside city limits just because his master is not in immediate sight, especially when not on your own property, shows a marked lack of forbearance, quite a lot of hate, and an ignorance of the law. And if I were that acreage owner who lost the dog, I might be tempted to see to it that this trigger-happy neighbour of hers loses a head of cattle or two. Because killing cattle is not illegal either.
In any case, we're off topic. The subject of this blog is supposed to be breed-specific legislation that tells citizens what kind of dog they may keep in the confines of their own house, not the correct response to Heinz-57s raiding henhouses or chasing cows.
P.S. Is it common for people in your neck of the woods to hate their neighbours so much? Because that's the picture you're painting. A very bleak picture with lots of black paint. There isn't some other reason you're in such a dark mood lately, is there dp?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-28 2:31:30 PM
My God, does DP not realize that dogs do get lost in the bush just as children do. As a responsible society we should gather them up and get them back to their owners or parents (children). Voilence is never an answer to any situation. It has never solded anything. Even with precautions the unfortunate can happen. I guess we are beating a dead horse, but DP would probably enjoy that. Less than one percent of dog breeds ever bite so this perceived crazy threat by canines is just that, perceived.
Posted by: LiNDA CAREY | 2009-04-28 8:45:15 PM
These bans really bother me, but proper tracking of incidents and the relative ratio of Pit Bulls owns, vs attacks should show that it's only a small problem, not directly tied to the breed itself, but to bad owners in general. There should be laws, but not restriction on the breed because, like a lot of us out there, my sweet pit bull is the nicest dog - better than my two chihuahuas and NOT NEARLY as mean. They're all great though : )
There's a cute article on My.Arfie.com about sweet pit bulls - check it out http://my.arfie.com/profiles/blogs/pit-bulls-are-sweet-and-smart
Not a bad site if you like social stuff
Posted by: Taylor | 2009-04-30 2:18:54 PM
The dogs that attacked in Calgary were NOT pit bulls. One was a boxer mix and the other was a nine month old Presca Canaro. Second thing, no you are not required by law to shoot a dog if you see it in the bush. You may however dispose of a dog caught molesting deer. Third it has been written into the criminal code just recently, within the past three years if you utter to kill someone's dog you have committed an indictable offense (in a nutshell). Last thing, "dogs are hard on wildlife and cattle". Man is hard on wild life and cattle, I think that sounds more reasonable.
Posted by: LiNDA CAREY | 2009-05-02 1:43:12 PM
Funny thing is i totally agree with Randy he should put an end to this if he can and to the people that didnt know or think they know a pitbull does not have the most powerful jaw it is a rottweiler by far i mean by like 300pnds of pressure a pitbull only has around 200 pounds of pressure and thats a big headed one and a normal rottweiler has around 500 pounds so get the facts straight and quit bein a bunch of gullable idiots i have more to say but im busy right now.
Posted by: Jordan | 2009-05-07 3:33:20 PM
Info on Canine bite force which may be of interest
Posted by: Fear the Premier of Ontario | 2009-05-07 4:55:51 PM
Any stats out there on which dogs won't stop and let you freaking loose even when you're busting them upside the head with a baseball bat? Pretty sure the neighbourhood cockapoodle terrorizing the neighbourhood ain't on that list. I'm probably ok on Australian heelers, among many many others, on that score also. Pit bulls and rotties? Not so much.
Also noted is the constant references to deaths by dog bite It ain't just the deaths, people, it's the damage and ability to extricate. People don't fear pit bulls just because they bite. It's because they won't freakin let go.
Note: The preceding opinions make no representations as to the correctness of grammar or spelling. Corrections of same may be sent to...
Posted by: BoomNoZoom | 2009-05-07 5:43:33 PM
Fear the Premier,
I noticed in the stats you linked to that hyenas have a pretty nasty bite force. I say we ban them too. A ban on lions works for me also.
Posted by: BoomNoZoom | 2009-05-07 5:47:04 PM
Pitbulls just need a great deal of attention and social skills and perfect example is and i blame the people for this happening not to long ago in vancouver the kid got bit in the face in his/her bedroom now that dog has been outside its whole life never allowed in the house and one day they decide to let it in and leave it in there kids room unattended with the door closed = not recommended to do with any dog with small children part of that problem to cause kids are at a dogs eye lvl which sparks a whole new thing but my point is the parents are to blame for that and the spca actually adopted the dog out instead of euthanizing it because they knew it wasnt the dog.
Posted by: Jordan | 2009-05-08 5:35:40 AM
Another thing i have noticed with pitbulls they are highly intelligent and they will let you know if theres something wrong you may think the dog is just acting up but really i had met someone and being a trusting person that i am i let this person in my house and my pitbull freaked on him didnt attack him but just wouldn t leave him alone she was telling me something that i never acknowledged this person is bad is what she was telling me and my girlfriend even had said she doesnt trust that person and i dont think Roxy does either sure enough 2 weeks later the whole family including the dog were out for the day and my house got robbed now who do we think that was.
Posted by: Jordan | 2009-05-08 5:42:31 AM
I love all dogs of every breed even the ones that are nasty....... show no fear you get no fear thats the problem to people ever think it could be the person that made that dog wanna bite them happens with every breed i have seen people so afraid of dogs that the dog all he was tryin to do is sniff there leg and they get freaked out now what do you think is goin through that dogs head or theres the classic very scared person to make up for there fear they try to get tough by tryin to get the dog to fear them bang you got a dog that goes into defensive mode and i am talkin about all breeds which is part of fear biting.
Posted by: Jordan | 2009-05-08 6:13:10 AM
for my last post there are bad owners to.... anyways people are so misled by pitbulls its not even funny my old pitbull was named Emily she never hurt a damn thing and she lived a happy whole life when i would take her for walks most dogs sniff at whos walkin by i mean mine would just sniff for a quick second wouldnt even stop i had people endager themselves by throwing themselves on to a busy street i couldnt help but laugh right in there face and im bein serious i would even say to my dog while we walked away wtf is wrong with that person i cant believe they would rather get hit by a car than have a dog sniff by them keyword by them not nose pressed into the leg sniffing just a quick glance kind of thing but this has got to stop.
Posted by: Jordan | 2009-05-08 6:24:03 AM
i personally was raised by a pit bull. my dad knew my mom would not look after me as much as she should have, because she never wanted children. so he instructed the dog to " look did/after me" he did! a breeder of standard poodles had a gate malfunction, i was 4 and my dog ran off about 20 mad poodles, these were NOT toys, look it up i was saved by the tenacious of my beloved dog. there is no way i could have survived without him, he rescued more times than that, because my mom never looked for me. i had a horse stand on my foot for three hours, til she woke up. he definitely took better care of me than she did.
Posted by: April Love | 2009-05-16 6:45:29 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.