...



Moving on... lol

as for the pit bull vs. others bite force "study", I saw that a while ago. It's such a joke
A total of 3 dogs is not going to tell you anything. It would be interesting to see a similar study involving maybe 50 dogs from each breed (with a similar training level and bite development obviously). That would certainly provide more accurate information.

Does it really matter anyway?

Maybe the focus should just be on hiking up the punishment for those responsible for these dog attacks. People have the right to own dangerous dogs if they so choose, but those individuals have no right letting their dogs roam loose and attack innocent bystanders.
Maybe with a more severe penalty (life in prison, execution for a repeat offender? I'm for both), they would take their responsibilities a little more seriously and we'd have less people amputated in the hospital, and less children killed and disfigured.

 Quote: Yuko Blum

Maybe with a more severe penalty (life in prison, execution for a repeat offender? I'm for both), they would take their responsibilities a little more seriously and we'd have less people amputated in the hospital, and less children killed and disfigured.

Definitely. But instead our province has banned pitbulls. I am not sure what it is like in Ottawa, but in Toronto there are THOUSANDS of pitbulls, many of which I would see around before the ban (and never worried me because they were social and under control). Now those same pits, owned by law abiding citizens, are muzzled and neutered, and those people undoubtedly have trouble finding insurance and rental housing in this city...

But the real PROBLEM pits? The ones I WOULD worry about? They're not owned by law-abiding citizens, and so guess what? They still run loose, un-muzzled, and are intact. Surprise!

Yuko, my frustration here isn't directed to you. I was 100% in agreement with ideas similar to your supporting tougher penalties for the owners of dogs that bite. Unfortunately our government must have thought that would take too much enforcement, and decided instead that a blanket ban was easier, cheaper, and left more money for the leaders of our province to pay themselves.

Jennifer, I'm just as frustrated with these stupid breed bans as you are!
I can't count the number of petitions I signed against the bans... oh well.

It's funny, there are pits (very nice ones) that have been around here for years and whose owners I've gotten to know well. As soon as the ban came out, their dogs were no longer pit bulls, they were "mixes"

Can't say I blame them... their dogs are not dangerous and there's no reason why they should be muzzled and leashed at all times, when the golden retriever next door is more likely to bite.

I wish the laws would target owners instead of the breeds (but then I'm preaching to the choir here!). Unfortunately, as you said, it's far easier and less controversial for law makers to focus on the breed.

I admit though, I am relieved that there aren't anymore wild pit bulls running around here like we used to see a few years ago. I feel bad for the dogs, of course, but from a purely selfish perspective it's nice to see those dominant and wild dogs gone.

The problem of course is that even with pit bulls gone (this includes all the nice ones!) the irresponsible owners just move on to other dogs. Some of them don't even go for the aggressive breeds, but with dog packs running loose, they become a menace regardless of breed.

Sigh. I hate how little progress we're making with dog laws... seems like after all these years something positive would have popped up

 Quote: Yuko Blum

Sigh. I hate how little progress we're making with dog laws... seems like after all these years something positive would have popped up

Ah, yes... But remember:

POSITIVE + EFFECTIVE = EXPENSIVE

Maybe it's also a reluctance to impose on people's civil rights. Let's say that the punishments for letting one's dog attack others (without provocation of course) do get very high. There will still be wackos out there (like drug dealers, the stereotype) who aren't going to care.

Possible solutions would be to have people register the dangerous dogs and fill out a form to indicate that they are aware of the type of care and control that they have to put into their dogs (and the consequences if they don't).

Personally, if I had to register and fill out forms to own my shepherds, I'd be happy to do it. Certainly if it meant that people couldn't keep an aggressive shepherd at the end of a chain 24/7 anymore.

But as soon as that type of initiative is proposed, you have the "but my civil rights..." protests that pop up. I guess the question is, does someone have the "right" to keep their dogs on a chain and to not socialize them?
When that dog breaks loose and attacks someone, is it just "oops" and considered an accident? Or can the owner be prosecuted for not taking the proper precautions in raising a potentially dangerous animal?

Really, can lawmakers or law enforcers tell someone how to raise and house their dogs? I believe there are already laws against keeping a dog tied out for more than a few hours a day (I doubt that they're enforced), but what about socialization and training? There's no way to keep track of that kind of thing and there's certainly no way that owners are going to be told how and when to train their own dogs!

How about letting the dogs roam loose... does the individual have the right to do that on public property as long as the dogs haven't attacked anyone?

Again, no matter how many restrictions you put out, the careless idiots will still go on ignoring them unless the laws are enforced properly and the consequences are severe enough.

Yuko: ...But registration leads to other nastiness. How many people here hate the fact that their dog has to get redundant rabies shots just so they can have a piece of paper about their dog?

So pretty soon all you have is more paperwork for the law abiding citizens. I can assure you if laws were passed that any dog over X pounds had to be registered because it's possible they're dangerous, that all the drug dealers and other forms of social misfits who want "those" breeds for "those" reasons would either fly under the radar, or perhaps starve their dogs to keep them under the weight (as well as providing a healthy appetite for when your enemies are at your door).

I would rather see - for example - laws requiring a quality fence with at least two gates for the dog to get out of, than to see people have to register "dangerous" breeds.

Got an outside dog over 50lbs? No chain. Ever. 6' high chain link kennel, with a roof, and a latchable gate. Another 6' high chain link fence around your property, or at least around the kennel, preferably with an angled-back top to keep the jumpers in. Something like that seems more constructive to me than mandating registration.

Of course with that you still cause rump-discomfort for those who have well behaved dogs, but there's probably not much of a way to avoid that and still look like you (as a hypothetical legislator) are doing something.

Yuko,

I very well have missed your point.

I skim long posts, at best.

Excellent solution, Jamie!
I'd vote for that if it were proposed around here, even if it did cause me extra hassle

Then again, without registration, how are law enforcers going to track down people with the dogs needing those precautions and enforce the laws?

Chances are, criminals and irresponsible owners will ignore all those laws and we'll only find out about it when their dogs break loose and maul a child.

Then what? Hopefully a severe punishment for breaking the law...

I can't seem to think of a "perfect solution". No matter what there always appears to be an endless supply of idiots ruining it for the rest of us (be it guns or dogs!). I guess the best thing would be to lock them up or execute them so that we can at least keep their numbers down. Hehe.


Steven: lol yes, I am aware of your reluctance to read long posts. And I try so hard to use lots of paragraphs, indents and proper punctuation
Anyway, I agree with everything you said (you just assumed you were arguing against me when you actually weren't) hehe.

 Quote: janice jarman

Will, they used to make a sort of handgun ammunition that had shot in it, like a shotgun shell. The top of the bullet was clear and you could see the pellets. It worked for a regular .38 revolver that my ex husband had when he worked in animal control on the East Coast. It was a true one-shot stopper, but it wouldn't go through walls like a regular bullet. Do they still make them? Id' think they'd be very good when carrying a weapon in the city.

Janice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug

The Glaser Safety slug. It came out with mega publicity like the "Second Coming" but it failed to deliver enough reliable one-shot stops to be worth serious consideration for "social" confrontations.
A good idea that failed in real life.

Hence I, and all true students of the defensive firearm stick with the .45 ACP...........nothing better.

was told that pitbulls and there relatives. Am Staffs,bostons,and the like were actually bred for ranch work,and hog hunting.then some guys who could'nt stand the sight of there own blood but wanted to fight came up with a "GREAT IDEA". Lets get dogs to do it for us.Chicken shits...I belive in my heart that,with the correct time with the mother,8 wks.brought up in a good home.with sound training.and good pack structure.like you will find in Mr. Frawleys books.And if you can't read watch ceasar milan.a pittbullwould be a fine dog.at least 99% of them.