Pitbulls, Eh?

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

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 26th, 2017, 11:06 am

It is a fact that some breeds of dogs are more aggressive than other breeds of dogs.

And it is also a fact that some people deliberately buy those with the most aggressive tendencies, because they want a dog that they can train to be aggressive.

And when that happens, and the dog gets loose, there is a problem.

Maybe what we really need is some kind of screening whenever people buy a certain breed of dog, to find out why they want that particular breed and what kind of training they intend to give it.

We also need tighter rules around things like secure fencing to make sure such dogs can't get out of their yard, and requiring them to wear a muzzle and be on a leash whenever they are away from their own premises.

It will make life a bit more difficult for the owners of breeds known to have aggressive tendencies, but if even one life is saved it will be worth 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: 8837
Likes: 8036 posts
Liked in: 7318 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 11:11 am

The bylaws aren't enforced now and bad breeding and puppy mills haven't been abolished. 2 metre leashes and having dogs under control are already mandatory as are licences yet the majority of dogs aren't licenced. No point in trying to fix other problems when these issues had they been abided by could have saved a life.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 49053
Likes: 1465 posts
Liked in: 7558 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 26th, 2017, 11:24 am

Fancy wrote:The bylaws aren't enforced now and bad breeding and puppy mills haven't been abolished. 2 metre leashes and having dogs under control are already mandatory as are licences yet the majority of dogs aren't licenced. No point in trying to fix other problems when these issues had they been abided by could have saved a life.

I have to agree with you about the poor enforcement of existing by-laws (and not just dog by-laws either). I've often wondered why Municipalities bother passing by-laws if they're not going to enforce them.

There was a case in the Vernon paper just this past weekend, about how in Armstrong there is a by-law limiting the number of dogs in a household to 2, yet when a resident complained that his neighbour had 3 pitbulls, the municipality did not enforce their own law. When the complainant asked the reason why, the municipality refused to explain, citing privacy reasons. But it sounds like a cop out to me.

If they don't want to enforce their own by-law, they should either change it or repeal 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: 8837
Likes: 8036 posts
Liked in: 7318 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 11:32 am

Kelowna has the same bylaw - no more than 2 over the age of 3 months (with exceptions). I can only guess the reason some get to keep the 3rd dog because they've had it for some time (grandfathered?). I wouldn't expect people to give up a family pet that they've had for years without a fight.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 49053
Likes: 1465 posts
Liked in: 7558 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Superkitty142 » Oct 26th, 2017, 11:37 am

This was the point I was trying to make in a different thread about this story. It is NOT okay for the media to slander the pitbull name because once again theses gorgeous dogs are being discriminated for something they didn't even do. Plus the story changes twice in the same article, so which is it ... were the dogs loose or were the dogs tied up not attended ? I don't think it is fare that the little dog ended up being the victim ,nor the little guy witnessing this attack. The person RESPONSIBLE for their dogs is simply just not a good example of a proper dog owner. I am an owner of two lovley pitbulls and I can't stand it when my dogs are judged for someone else's carelessness. It is the owner period. When the media prints such BS about our dogs its safe to say my hackles go way up. Us bully breed owners have to deal with so much *bleep* because of this media and how they love to miss use the breed of dog for the sake of instilling fear into people .oh and guess what else you probably didn't know... remember how Montreal banned pittbulls? Yeah... guess what the so called "pitbull" that attacked and killed that woman was ACTUALLY A BOXER. So get your god dam breeds right before you make them headlines. And shame on all you breed hating people, guess what it's not the dog's bite you should fear, it's the owners. So please if you can't be a RESPONSIBLE dog owner and invest the time to make sure your dog is trained then just don't bother, and that goes for all dog owner's not just bully breed type dogs.
Superkitty142
 
Posts: 2
Likes: 3 posts
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: May 9th, 2016, 10:00 am

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 26th, 2017, 11:37 am

Yes, but in this case these folks only moved into the neighbourhood in the past year, whereas the complainant has lived there for 20 years. Surely there was a responsibility on the dog owners to check what the rules were before moving into the neighbourhood?

I do have sympathy with people who don't want to part with their dogs, but I have even more sympathy for someone who is now scared to use his own back yard because these three dogs keep lunging at the fence, and snarling and growling every time he does. Apparently the fence is only 4 feet high, and in a very poor state of repair, so the man is absolutely terrified every time he goes out there. And I don't blame him.

Having the municipality tell him it's not their concern is wrong IMO. They ought to be willing to pass a by-law making the dog owner repair the fence and build it higher if necessary. Nobody should be afraid to use their own yard because the neighbour has aggressive dogs.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 8837
Likes: 8036 posts
Liked in: 7318 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 11:43 am

Merry wrote:I do have sympathy with people who don't want to part with their dogs, but I have even more sympathy for someone who is now scared to use his own back yard because these three dogs keep lunging at the fence, and snarling and growling every time he does. Apparently the fence is only 4 feet high, and in a very poor state of repair, so the man is absolutely terrified every time he goes out there. And I don't blame him.

There is a bylaw for that and he should document and take video. No one's dogs are allowed to be that menacing.

g) Harassing a Person - No owner or harbourer of a dog shall allow their dog to harass, chase, or approach a person in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack


Doesn't matter if a fence is there.

https://armstrong.civicweb.net/filepro/ ... view=78468

And of course no extended barking....
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 49053
Likes: 1465 posts
Liked in: 7558 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 26th, 2017, 11:58 am

Fancy wrote:
Merry wrote:I do have sympathy with people who don't want to part with their dogs, but I have even more sympathy for someone who is now scared to use his own back yard because these three dogs keep lunging at the fence, and snarling and growling every time he does. Apparently the fence is only 4 feet high, and in a very poor state of repair, so the man is absolutely terrified every time he goes out there. And I don't blame him.

There is a bylaw for that and he should document and take video. No one's dogs are allowed to be that menacing.

g) Harassing a Person - No owner or harbourer of a dog shall allow their dog to harass, chase, or approach a person in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack


Doesn't matter if a fence is there.

https://armstrong.civicweb.net/filepro/ ... view=78468

And of course no extended barking....


Thanks for that Fancy, but having read through the by'law I'm not entirely sure that particular clause applies when the dogs involved are in their own yard. I think it only applies whenever they are in a public place (or at least that appears to be the way the municipal officials are interpreting it). The fact is that it doesn't appear to be specific enough, which allows for the variations in interpretation.

I also read this part, which on the face of it would appear to address the guy's problem UNTIL you read the definition of "dangerous dog"
The owner or harbourer of a Dangerous Dog shall confine the dog in a secure enclosure and shall muzzle the dog whenever it is off the owner's or harbourer's premises.

Dangerous Dog means a dog that:
a) has killed or seriously injured a person, or b) has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal while in a public place or while on private property, other than property owned or occupied by the person responsible for the dog, or c) a Dog Control Officer has reasonable grounds to believe is likely to kill or seriously injure a person.


So it would appear the dogs have to actually kill or seriously injure the guy before they'll classify it as dangerous (unless the by-law officer is willing to go out on a limb and make the decision which, in this case he apparently is not). So it's a stalemate.

But I took the time to walk by the property in question, and the fence is falling down in places. I'd be scared too. People who own dogs (any dogs) should be made responsible for ensuring there is a secure fence around their property.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 8837
Likes: 8036 posts
Liked in: 7318 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 12:26 pm

Other areas will deal with dogs charging at a fence but the bylaw or dog control should take a look at his fence. Officials shouldn't brush the complaints aside. A disaster shouldn't have to happen before something is done. There's the noise factor as well as the secure enclosure that bylaw should be looking at. It won't be deemed a dangerous dog until something happens but the bylaws regarding enclosure and noise apply to all dogs at the very least.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat

Merry likes this post.
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 49053
Likes: 1465 posts
Liked in: 7558 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 26th, 2017, 12:41 pm

Fancy wrote: but the bylaws regarding enclosure and noise apply to all dogs at the very least.

I agree that they SHOULD apply to all dogs but, in this particular case, the way it's worded appears to make the secure enclosure rule only apply to dangerous dogs (i.e. dogs that have already bitten someone).

The municipality needs to reword the by-law regarding a secure enclosure to includes ALL dogs.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 8837
Likes: 8036 posts
Liked in: 7318 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 12:44 pm

Merry wrote:
Fancy wrote: but the bylaws regarding enclosure and noise apply to all dogs at the very least.

I agree that they SHOULD apply to all dogs but, in this particular case, the way it's worded appears to make the secure enclosure rule only apply to dangerous dogs (i.e. dogs that have already bitten someone).

The municipality needs to reword the by-law regarding a secure enclosure to includes ALL dogs.
The wording is okay - the enclosure is for dogs in general.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 49053
Likes: 1465 posts
Liked in: 7558 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 26th, 2017, 1:32 pm

The wording regarding fencing is in Section 8 of the by-law, which is the section that deals with dangerous dogs (as defined earlier in the by-law as being dogs that have already bitten someone, or attacked another animal)
Danqerous Doqs
a) The owner or harbourer of a Dangerous Dog shall confine the dog in a secure enclosure and shall muzzle the dog whenever it is off the owner' s or harbourer's premises.

Where does it say this applies to ALL dogs? I can't find it.

But surely, ALL dogs should be confined in a secure enclosure (in the form of a well secured, fenced yard). Which is why I think the by-law should be changed to reflect that fact.
"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: 8837
Likes: 8036 posts
Liked in: 7318 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 1:35 pm

I seem to have been mistaken - I'm reading another set of bylaws not pertaining to Armstrong. Sorry about that.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat

Merry likes this post.
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 49053
Likes: 1465 posts
Liked in: 7558 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 1:48 pm

I'm surprised so many area bylaws have some very different wording. More rural places seem to be a lot more lax. I actually don't know what to suggest for your friend - I guess the noise bit might be the only recourse.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 49053
Likes: 1465 posts
Liked in: 7558 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 26th, 2017, 1:49 pm

Yes, I see the definition
Secure Enclosure means any building, structure, fenced area or the like that prevents the
entry of young children and the escape of a dog.

but all that does is provide the meaning of the term "secure enclosure" when it is used in the by-law. And the place it is used in the by-law is in Section 8 which only deals with dangerous dogs. And when you refer to the definitions section to see what they consider to be a "dangerous" dog, it is described as one that has already bitten or killed someone, or harmed another animal.

Therefore, in the case that was described in the newspaper, the man feeling threatened had no recourse under the current by-law, because the dogs that are threatening him are not (using the definition in the by-law) "dangerous". Yet surely, common sense would dictate that 3 pitbulls lunging at a fence that is only 4 feet high, and in a very poor state of repair, is not only frightening but also a potentially dangerous situation. One that is not covered with the current wording of the by-law, and is presumably why the municipal administration feels powerless to do anything.

If the by-law was reworded to include a clause stating that all dog owners are responsible for ensuring they have a well secured, fenced yard to keep their dogs in, it would solve the problem. I'm not suggesting they replace the existing clause governing dangerous dogs, I'm suggesting they keep that and add a new clause in a different section to deal with ALL dogs, not just the ones deemed "dangerous".
"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: 8837
Likes: 8036 posts
Liked in: 7318 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], pieinthei and 1 guest