TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Short sighted Pit Bull ban about to pass
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Short sighted Pit Bull ban about to pass

quote:

The politicians at Queen�s Park get down to business Tuesday and they�ll face off against two controversial pieces of legislation. After months of hearings, discussions and debates about pit bulls, the Liberals are reportedly ready to pass legislation to ban the breed from the province. The issue has divided the public. Some support the move, on the heels of attacks by pit bulls on other dogs and people. Others say not all of the dogs are bad and owners should suffer more of the blame than the animals. Meanwhile, the Liberals are also set to pass a bill that will protect a green belt from development. The chunk of land stretches from Peterborough to Niagara Falls. But the opposition complains that the Grits don�t have a clear agenda in the works and are just trying to side-step conversations about key issues like health care and education. The Legislature doesn�t often sit in February, but Premier Dalton McGuinty said his team thought they should because there�s a lot of work to do.

I guess the government has nothing better to do like, oh lets say, fix health care?

Even my cousin Donna Trempe (who's daughter Courtney Trempe was my second cousin who was killed by a bull mastiff) is against the ban. She even told the government this. But to no avail. These arrogant pricks are still going to pass a bill that acheives nothing more than criminalizing pet owners for the sake of politics.

I cant wait to cast my ballot in the next election. It feels good to vote against Liberals.

I must say that i agree with the greenebelt plan as long as it is done properly. I think in combination with this they should also have more of a hand in community planning. We need to stop land waste in the suburbs. Look at the gigantic strip plazes with parking lots! Why not put the stores right at the street with all that parking in the rear? This way we can make streets more pedestrian friendly again.

Fantino mentioned that Pitt Bulls are used as weapons by thugs.The problem is that those dogs aren't affected by Pepper spray & need a whole clip from a cops gun to kill those dogs...I dunno about a Rhotty or a Bull Mastif if those breeds can "take" that...


I'm not a dog lover & after getting bit twice as a kid (once in the face)...if "removing" a breed that can rip my face to pieces & NOT die from several gun shots, then BAN away

quote:

Originally posted by RobbyG. Fantino mentioned that Pitt Bulls are used as weapons by thugs.The problem is that those dogs aren't affected by Pepper spray & need a whole clip from a cops gun to kill those dogs...I dunno about a Rhotty or a Bull Mastif if those breeds can "take" that... I'm not a dog lover & after getting bit twice as a kid (once in the face)...if "removing" a breed that can rip my face to pieces & NOT die from several gun shots, then BAN away

I understand the trauma involved with getting bitten by a dog. However, I really don't think banning the breed is going to do a whole lot. Some silly government rule isn't going to mean shit to a thug. More strict breeding enforcement would be great, but again, just like this rediculous ban, it won't do a damn thing. The provinces legitamate owners will just give the lib's a big giant FUCK YOU.

Doesn't matter what they do. Half the population will be pissed one way or the other. Hopefully this means McGuinty and his cast of idiots' days are numbered.

I dont think it matters whether or not the opinion of someone who has someone close to them, or themselves attacked by a dog has any merit in this discussion.

But the ban is stupid, blame owners, not animals.

"arrogant pricks", Jay? come on now, that's a bit much. They're enacting legislation (albeit flawed) based partially upon public demand. If they ignore the public's wishes, aren't they THEN being arrogant?

the law is dumb on it's own though...no doubt about that. on it's own, it doesn't address current owners as they don't have to destroy their dogs (and I don't think they should have to). We also need stiffer penalties for owners of ANY dog that attacks someone.

This ban is needed as these dogs have a *proven* tendency to be unable to be controlled once they attack...and that they can attack without provocation (witness the friend of an owner who was walking the dogs by himself and was attacked by both of them, with police being able to subdue them only after multiple gunshots).

Holding an owner responsible after someone is mauled is necessary too, but also only addresses the symptoms, not the root of the problem...and that root is a type of dog that cannot be adequately controlled or subdued.

I support the ban...but it's only a first step.

quote:

Originally posted by Rodrico I dont think it matters whether or not the opinion of someone who has someone close to them, or themselves attacked by a dog has any merit in this discussion. But the ban is stupid, blame owners, not animals.

The person i mentioned, my cousin, is against the ban and shes been a victim!

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT "arrogant pricks", Jay? come on now, that's a bit much. They're enacting legislation (albeit flawed) based partially upon public demand. If they ignore the public's wishes, aren't they THEN being arrogant?

considering that every animal expert and veterinarian that was consulted said it was a bad idea yet they are doing it anyways then yes id say this is an arrogant move. This government is very knee jerk reactionary which is the worst kind of government to have.

quote:

the law is dumb on it's own though...no doubt about that. on it's own, it doesn't address current owners as they don't have to destroy their dogs (and I don't think they should have to). We also need stiffer penalties for owners of ANY dog that attacks someone.

stiffer penalties for dog owners YES. Breed ban? NO!

quote:

This ban is needed as these dogs have a *proven* tendency to be unable to be controlled once they attack...and that they can attack without provocation (witness the friend of an owner who was walking the dogs by himself and was attacked by both of them, with police being able to subdue them only after multiple gunshots).

ALL dogs have a proven tendancy to attack if motivated the wrong way. So what? Ban all dogs?

quote:

Holding an owner responsible after someone is mauled is necessary too, but also only addresses the symptoms, not the root of the problem

You are right which is why they should crack down on people who abuse their pets which causes them to be vicious.

quote:

...and that root is a type of dog that cannot be adequately controlled or subdued.

Precisely. And those dogs are any breed that were raised improperly by its owner. Its not me saying this. Talk to any vet or animal expert and they will say the same thing. Now who do i trust to know more about animal behaviour. Scientists and people with education about animal behaviour patterns? Or Mcguinty and his Liberal cronies?

At the end of the day Pit bull have that ability where thier jaw locks when they attack someone and it causes them pain and they are forced to rip apart the material until they are freed( or so i read). Other dogs do not have this ability and thus are less of a threat.

Honestly, in winnipeg when they banned pitbulls the number of attacks by dogs went down markedly.

I think bannning pitbulls is a brilliant idea. A friend of mine lost his beautiful husky when it was attacked by a pitbull. His husky was the biggest nicest friendliest dog ever.

Pit bulls regardless of owners have certain genetic traits which make them a threat such as the issues with thier jaws and also thier temperment.

Whats the diff if we ban them? So people have to buy a husky or a german shepppard. So what?
Hell maybe the guvernment could even have a trade in program.

I dont see why people are getting so upset about banning an animal that causes so much trouble.
Hell we routinly kill bears when they are forced to forage for food in urban environments due to our encrouchment in thier natural habitat.

At the end of the day pitbulls were bread to be attack dogs and much like other dangerous weapons the general public should not have access to them as clearly we are unable to handle them. Thus much like how you average joe does not have access to a missle launcher so to should we not have access to pitbulls.

or if we are allowed to keep pitbulls then i want to be able to keep a pet grizzly bear and then walk it around the park

OK so whats next? There are many other breeds "known" for biting. Where do we draw the line?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The person i mentioned, my cousin, is against the ban and shes been a victim!

Then she like the pain I guess. There's a good reason why some animals are banned from being among the public. It's because they're violent and dangerous. I guess we should have wild wolves, bears, sabre-tooth tigers roaming the streets, after all we should have our freedom right?

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd Then she like the pain I guess.

That has to be the most ignorant fucking thing ive ever read on here.

Yeah she likes the pain... that's it...

fuck

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The person i mentioned, my cousin, is against the ban and shes been a victim!

It doesn't matter whether shes for or against the law, her opinion shouldnt provide any merit because she is a first hand victim or knows someone who is.

quote:

Originally posted by Rodrico It doesn't matter whether shes for or against the law, her opinion shouldnt provide any merit because she is a first hand victim or knows someone who is.

Sure it should. They are passing laws to protect people like her and people like her are saying that they dont need it.

Sounds like an opinion more worthy than that of a politician

quote:

Posted by Jayx1 OK so whats next? There are many other breeds "known" for biting. Where do we draw the line?

Chihuahuas! Those agressive little ******s should be banned. They have one mean bite!

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Sure it should. They are passing laws to protect people like her and people like her are saying that they dont need it. Sounds like an opinion more worthy than that of a politician

No it shouldn't, because then it makes it right for us to take in the opinions of those who were first case victims and are for the banning of Pitbulls. You can't pick and choose who you want to hear cheer or hate certain things based on opinion, its fallacious in an arguement to do so. It's a shame you arent willing to see how dangerous the idea of accepting the opinions of non-experts is in this case, when its the very idea of people who dont have a clue that are bringing this upon the city in the first place.

I guess whatever wins your fights, fight fire with fire as they say.

Actually i applaud her for not being a knee jerk responder. This is the difference between listening to her and someone else who has been through it. To ban the breed even though the science is against it is ridiculous. That fact that she has been through all that she has been through and still believes that this is not right is testiment to the fact that she can see things clearly.

Sadly its the politicians and those who support the ban that are the knee jerkers. I cant wait until this ban everything mentality that society is suffering from comes home to roost and affects the things that those people hold dear.

I bet those who are against the pit bull ban support the smoking ban for example.

You cant just pick and choose this ban mentality because once you set the mood it's hard to reverse it.

This is another example of the poor methods of the McGuinty government.

Rather than make rational laws/legislation, and then enforce them, Dalton is making yet ANOTHER sweeping ban that doesn't attack the problem, just a symptom.

Like with the smoking ban. Smoking and purchasing them is legal (and taxing them), but smoking in public is not? Instead of a blanket ban, bars and restaurants should have been legislated options, like smoking areas, installing proper ventilation, % of staff positions for smokers to work smoking areas etc.

Kneejerk idiocy is the name of the Liberal big-brother mentality. Afterall, they are morally superior and smarter than the rest of us poor folk.

Rather than legislate leash and muzzle laws for ALL dogs in large population centres, they go for the quick fix. What about owner education for some or all breeds prior to sale and proof of it when your dog is licensed? There are more deaths a year from aspirin than dog attacks, are we going to ban that next?

Funny that the Conservatives were so heavily bashed in this country, but the majority of the economic rape of our social infrastructure, and depleting of our freedoms have been @ the hands of Liberal Federal and Provincial governments.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT "arrogant pricks", Jay? come on now, that's a bit much. They're enacting legislation (albeit flawed) based partially upon public demand. If they ignore the public's wishes, aren't they THEN being arrogant?

If they care so much about public demand, then why haven't they done anything about auto insurance yet? I hear A LOT more complaints about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 OK so whats next? There are many other breeds "known" for biting. Where do we draw the line?

this isn't about breeds known for biting...it's about a type of dog that CANNOT be made to STOP once it attacks.

Other dogs will either halt an attack on command, or are at least able to...and are able to be MUCH more easily subdued with force if they will not.

it has been demonstrated that pit bulls go into an irreversible "attack mode" and simply will NOT ceaze an attack once it has begun. Given that, along with the near impossibility of subduing them (ie. without multiple gunshots), then this type of dog IS different that others that merely bite or attack when provoked.

ie. the dogs are being said to be inherently unpredictable and uncontrollable in the event of attack. The vast majority of dogs, even those that "bite", do not fall under this category. So the ban isn't as unreasonable as you're suggesting...it's simply inadequate as we need to address not only "pit bulls", but owners who do not maintain control over ANY dog.

I've read the experts' opinions...one of which came from the head of the U.S. Vet association, isn't so much "against" the ban as they're saying it's not productive (or even accurate). Reason being, what I mentioned before...that "pit bulls" are not an actual breed..."pit bull" apparently refers to characteristics that many breeds share, so this bylaw in fact refers to breeds that aren't actually the intended targets of the legislation.

So you know better than the experts? You should run for the Liberals!

The experts basically say that breed bans wont work because they cant define a breed. But thats the case for most dogs. Not very many dogs out there are purebread.

If current leash laws were respected and owners were more harshly punished for abuse we would have fewer incidents of vicious dogs.

Im sick of this ban everything mentality.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Sure it should. They are passing laws to protect people like her and people like her are saying that they dont need it. Sounds like an opinion more worthy than that of a politician

How ridiculous is it that someone gets attacked by a vicious breed and still says they belong on the street? I'll put all my money on the fact that she's a dog owner herself. These owners value dogs like they're better than their own kids. They can get their arm taken off and still be kissing their dogs ass "oh the poor thing doesn't know any better".

I've been waiting for them to ban pitbulls for a long time, hopefully german shepherds are next. No fucking around with muzzle and leash laws that nobody obeys while little kids get mauled and killed. Good job guys.

Id be pissed off. Legislate them sure. banning them is bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So you know better than the experts? You should run for the Liberals! The experts basically say that breed bans wont work because they cant define a breed. But thats the case for most dogs. Not very many dogs out there are purebread. If current leash laws were respected and owners were more harshly punished for abuse we would have fewer incidents of vicious dogs. Im sick of this ban everything mentality.

Did you even read my post? Exactly where am I implying that I know more than the experts? I said I've read the experts' opinions...and then you just REPEATED EXACTLY WHAT I SAID with regard to why they don't see the bans as worthwhile! lol

how many more cases do we need where some surprised owner says "but my dog has never done that before" after a mauling before we enact some legislation?

most dogs that bite don't maul and kill...certain "pit bull" varieties do...some experts say it's how their brain works...they go into a permanent attack mode that can't be halted, even by multiple gunshot wounds...great!

sorry, but we don't need that kind of dog in our society...oh but the "rights" of the good pit bull owners

this is just another fundamental disagreement we have...I feel that as a society, we can evolve past silly notions of unlimited freedoms and rights when we recognize something that is *clearly* not beneficial to our society.

I'm not much of a subscriber to punishment for the sake of punishment...so that pillar of the community who's pit bull attacks and kills someone...what is an effective leash law violating punishment that is suitable for the "crime" they committed? jail? sorry, I'm not paying for that. a fine? what fine can be charged that will "equal" the damage done? don't fines just hit the lower class harder than the middle or upper class?

my position isn't perfect either...but the ban also isn't simple Liberal arrogance as you'd have people believe...it's just not enough on it's own.

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd How ridiculous is it that someone gets attacked by a vicious breed and still says they belong on the street? I'll put all my money on the fact that she's a dog owner herself. These owners value dogs like they're better than their own kids. They can get their arm taken off and still be kissing their dogs ass "oh the poor thing doesn't know any better". I've been waiting for them to ban pitbulls for a long time, hopefully german shepherds are next. No fucking around with muzzle and leash laws that nobody obeys while little kids get mauled and killed. Good job guys.

she doesnt own a dog. The more you post the more ignorant you sound. Id quit while im ahead.

id settle for a comprimise. making certain animals wear a muzzle in public for example. But this government wont comprimise on anything whether its pit bulls, smoking, or anything else that comes their way. Its their way or the highway. Thats arrogance.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.