|
Short sighted Pit Bull ban about to pass
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 :) |
|
|
| TDG |
| 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 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 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| 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?
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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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? |
|
|
| swilly |
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 |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| OK so whats next? There are many other breeds "known" for biting. Where do we draw the line? |
|
|
| jdjd |
| 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? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jdjd
Then she like the pain I guess. |
That has to be the most ignorant ing thing ive ever read on here.
Yeah she likes the pain... that's it...
|
|
|
| Rodrico |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
