47395
45621

Pitbulls, Eh?

The forum's Skid Road. DO NOT ENTER unless you're ready for a squabble.

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby ifwisheswerehorses » Nov 7th, 2017, 1:00 pm

Hope Prince George has better luck:

Massachusetts state legislators are responsible for the death of Javian Candolario.

In 2011, Lowell City Councilor Rodney Elliott had successfully passed (5-4 vote) an ordinance called "The Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Ordinance" in Lowell, M A, after a string of pit bull attacks. The ordinance had required owners to have their pets spayed or neutered, and limited an owner to no more than 2 pit bulls. The ordinance also required the dogs to wear a muzzle or be secured in a temporary enclosure. As Counselor Elliott points out, these dogs would not have been able to kill this child in Lowell, if the city ordinance had been allowed to stand, and the dogs were muzzled or in an enclosure.

However, the "Breed-Specific Ban" law that Gov. Deval Patrick signed into law in 2012 superseded the Lowell ordinance on pit bulls. This 7-year-old child died as a result of the irresponsible, state preemption law that ties the hands and forbids communities from addressing local breed-specific problems.

I believe the state law that forbids municipalities from passing breed specific legislation (BSL) is dangerous, and needs to be repealed. Animal welfare groups and their lobbyists should not be allowed to persuade legislators to pass laws that endanger public safety. By passing anti-BSL laws that ignore the evidence, data, and statistics, our lawmakers are placing the public at risk.
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you’ll ever regret.
User avatar
ifwisheswerehorses
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 826
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 371 posts
Joined: Jul 14th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Nov 7th, 2017, 1:31 pm

There are no easy answers when it comes to this issue, because it's true that there are indeed some pit bulls who seem to be good around people, including kids. But it's also true that over 50% of dog attacks are caused by pit bulls, while the remaining 50% are caused by various other breeds. And it's irresponsible to simply ignore that statistic.

There are probably multiple reasons for the high incidence of pitbull attacks which result in serious injury or death. Partly it's the sheer strength of the breed, and the type of jaw which tends to make it virtually impossible to pull the dog away once it clamps down on something. And partly it's owners who are either unable, or unwilling to properly train and socialize their animals. But there are lots of other contributing factors as well. However, regardless of cause, the sad fact is that pit bulls have a much more dismal record than other breeds when it comes to attacking people, and children in particular.

Knowing that fact, I have to agree with the statement that having pit bulls around children is a bit like playing Russian roulette. And who wants to take that kind of chance with a child's safety?

I love dogs, and am fully in support of families owning dogs, but why own a dog that has such a poor track record? Are people putting children at risk simply to prove that THEY are the kind of dog owner who can train and properly socialize a potentially aggressive animal? Is that it?
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 6804
Likes: 3644 posts
Liked in: 3611 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 11:41 am

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 7th, 2017, 1:58 pm

Catsumi wrote:A dog confined to an apartment (if you can find one that takes animals) is asking for trouble, even though owning it never caused a problem before on an acreage.

The number of dogs (including big breeds) that live in the cities without issues belies your opinion. You don't hear of the good ones.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43096
Likes: 940 posts
Liked in: 4851 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 7th, 2017, 2:08 pm

ifwisheswerehorses wrote:Hope Prince George has better luck:
Those dogs weren't even registered as they should have been and I wouldn't be surprised if they had a history. Passing laws means squat if they aren't upheld. Just because the dogs were supposed to be muzzled doesn't mean they were.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43096
Likes: 940 posts
Liked in: 4851 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 7th, 2017, 3:32 pm

Catsumi wrote:The issue of dog droppings alone is something to be considered.
That was never a consideration in my world when getting a companion nor do I ever hear of any dog owner wishing they had a different dog because of the size of the waste.
Dogs and cats are carnivores so another concern with millions of them to feed daily in N. America while humans on this planet starve to death for lack of protein is irresponsible too.
Good grief that is so far out in left field it's not even funny. So now it seems you're advocating getting rid of dogs as pets altogether which is ludicrous. The benefits of owning one has already been proven. Not owning one does not improve the lot of someone starving in another part of the planet.
I am going out on a limb here to make a prediction: sometime in the future we will see "dog cafes" where those who like dogs can get a fix while drinking coffee thereby reducing their numbers dramatically.
Some places already allow dogs on patios however Health Canada has strict regulations regarding animals.
Animals
25 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an operator of food premises must not permit live animals to be on the premises.

(2) An operator of food premises may permit the following animals on the premises:
(a) a guide dog or a service dog, as defined in the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act, but not in any area of the premises in which food is prepared, processed or stored;
(b) live fish in an aquarium;
(c) any other animal that a health officer determines will not pose a risk of a health hazard occurring on the premises.

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/ ... /11_210_99
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43096
Likes: 940 posts
Liked in: 4851 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby ifwisheswerehorses » Nov 8th, 2017, 2:55 am

Fancy wrote:Those dogs weren't even registered as they should have been and I wouldn't be surprised if they had a history. Passing laws means squat if they aren't upheld. Just because the dogs were supposed to be muzzled doesn't mean they were.


However, the "Breed-Specific Ban" law that Gov. Deval Patrick signed into law in 2012 superseded the Lowell ordinance on pit bulls

There were no laws in place for pitbulls after 2012. Deval Patrick has basically trumped the lives of humans for certain breeds and their fans. It would seem many agree with him as well.
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you’ll ever regret.
User avatar
ifwisheswerehorses
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 826
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 371 posts
Joined: Jul 14th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 8th, 2017, 5:34 am

ifwisheswerehorses wrote:There were no laws in place for pitbulls after 2012.
My point was there are laws for dogs - not everyone follows them anyway.
Though the pit-bull ordinance was no longer around, the city's potentially dangerous or dangerous dog ordinance, adopted in 2008, remained.

Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/c ... z4xqZZjTQ4

I also looked into the law and it seems that pitbulls at no time had to be muzzled if they completed a training program. The ordinance was not shown to be effective and the dangerous dog bylaws cover all dogs.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43096
Likes: 940 posts
Liked in: 4851 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Poindexter » Nov 8th, 2017, 6:44 am

This situation demonstrates that the breed of dog wasn't the problem, it was the breed of human. :-X

Silverstarqueen likes this post.
User avatar
Poindexter
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4847
Likes: 2708 posts
Liked in: 3248 posts
Joined: May 26th, 2008, 10:44 am

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 8th, 2017, 7:39 am

Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 7071
Likes: 646 posts
Liked in: 1737 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby ifwisheswerehorses » Nov 9th, 2017, 3:37 am

Attachments
peaches' evil twin.JPG
peaches' evil twin.JPG (42.48 KiB) Viewed 69 times
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you’ll ever regret.
User avatar
ifwisheswerehorses
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 826
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 371 posts
Joined: Jul 14th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 5:26 am

ifwisheswerehorses wrote:Oh look it's Peaches' evil twin

Don't think it's appropriate to make jokes - this was known to be a dangerous dog and any dog that has attacked before should have been dealt with.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43096
Likes: 940 posts
Liked in: 4851 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 9th, 2017, 5:53 am

ifwisheswerehorses wrote:Oh look it's Peaches' evil twin



Which just proves, you can't go by appearances when deciding which dogs are great and which ones should go.
My neighbor's pitbull was a perfectly good, stable dog, better than other non-pitbulls around here. I have met perfectly freindly sociable pitbulls at the dog park (with and without owners). Never met one I didn't like. Does that mean that every single one out there is a good or safe dog, no. And there isn't any breed where you can claim they have never bitten anyone. That includes the cute little dogs some of which have killed or seriously harmed little humans.
I see small dogs often acting aggressively or misbehaving, including one that leaped on my large dog's head and stayed there at the dog park. (My dog was seriously confused as to what to do about that). Owner did nothing. No one reports that sort of behavior. If my dog did something like that, you can bet dog control would turn up , and he would be banned from public, and I'd probably get a hefty ticket.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 7071
Likes: 646 posts
Liked in: 1737 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 7:01 am

ifwisheswerehorses wrote:Hope Prince George has better luck:

I'm assuming you're referring to the changes in the bylaws.
http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news ... 1.23086946

Prince George's restrictions on pit bull dogs have been more trouble than they're worth, according to a staff report.

Let's hope Prince George does have better luck in deeming a dog aggressive the first incident.
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43096
Likes: 940 posts
Liked in: 4851 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 9th, 2017, 10:56 am

Merry wrote:Knowing that fact, I have to agree with the statement that having pit bulls around children is a bit like playing Russian roulette. And who wants to take that kind of chance with a child's safety?

I love dogs, and am fully in support of families owning dogs, but why own a dog that has such a poor track record? Are people putting children at risk simply to prove that THEY are the kind of dog owner who can train and properly socialize a potentially aggressive animal? Is that it?


Having any dog around children is a bit like playing Russian roulette, given that many types of dog breed and mutt mixes have seriously injured (or killed). That includes everything from a Retriever to a Jack Russell.

Who wants to take that kind of chance with a child's safety?

I have raised dogs of a breed which has a high rate of injuring people (German Shepherds). I am not "trying to prove" anything by chosing that breed. They are the most trainable, wonderful dog breed there is, and I never had a moment's worry for my children's safety from the first day my babies came home from the hospital and met my dogs. I did train and properly socialize my dogs, and properly supervised my dogs and my children. Some people do not, and it has little to do with the breed of dog. IF you look at the lists of which breeds or mixes were involved in a bite serious enough to report, or even a death, in Canada practically every breed is represented. What is not represented is the thousands of dogs of any one of those breeds which did not harm anyone. Simply having a secure enclosure, or leash, for the dog or supervising the child regardless of breed would have prevented 88% of the incidents, but all people can think about is the type of dog that they believe is 100% safe, when there is no such breed.People are injured by all sorts of activities on any given day, often because they did not take simple basic precautions, dog ownership is no different.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 7071
Likes: 646 posts
Liked in: 1737 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 7:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Nov 9th, 2017, 6:00 pm

Frankly, given the wide choice of breeds available if one wants to own a dog, I still don't understand why anybody would choose a breed that is known to have the highest incidence of attacks (and that's the pit bull).

Whether a particular pit bull is a "good" dog or not, one can't escape the fact that pit bulls are responsible for 50% of dog attacks on people. Which far surpasses the incidence of German shepherd attacks, so I don't understand your point Silverstarqueen.

Knowing that pit bulls have such a poor track record, I don't understand why anyone would want to take a chance with one, when there are so many other breeds to choose from.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 6804
Likes: 3644 posts
Liked in: 3611 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 11:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest