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, 1:51 pm

Fancy wrote: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.

He's not my friend, I don't even know the guy. I just heard the story, and decided to do a little investigative work on my own. Because it really bothered me that this poor man couldn't get any help from either the Municipal Office or his elected officials, when he clearly has a legitimate concern.
"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: 8338
Likes: 7122 posts
Liked in: 6508 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 2:00 pm

Well he certainly has a friend in you even though he doesn't know it. Unfortunately, I can only see a horrible situation happening before anything is done - seems that's usually the way it works to change the law.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48153
Likes: 1362 posts
Liked in: 7165 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Oct 26th, 2017, 3:40 pm

It appears the bylaw in Armstrong requires the dogs to be on their property, and not running at large, harassing animals, people.
Since these dogs were on their own property, how are they harming him? If they were not on their property, of course he can lodge a complaint. He wants a fence, there's a fence. It's only his opinion that it's not sufficient to hold the dogs, when it appears that it does.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8269
Likes: 862 posts
Liked in: 2163 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 4:27 pm

Silverstarqueen wrote: Since these dogs were on their own property, how are they harming him? If they were not on their property, of course he can lodge a complaint. He wants a fence, there's a fence. It's only his opinion that it's not sufficient to hold the dogs, when it appears that it does.
No, it's not just his opinion.
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

the fence is falling down in places.

You'd rather wait for the dogs to cause damage?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48153
Likes: 1362 posts
Liked in: 7165 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby JLives » Oct 26th, 2017, 4:47 pm

Retrosnap wrote:So...two dogs, sometimes owned by people of questionable character, that have been known to attack and kill...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tw ... og-3639842

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2012/08/2012-d ... bulls.html

maxresdefault.jpg


Were mistaken for pitbulls, also sometimes owned by people of questionable character, which have also been known to attack and kill.

https://thewalrus.ca/pit-bulls-are-not-our-friends/

http://www.unz.com/isteve/pit-bulls-acc ... atalities/

Golden-Pit-Bull-Dog-In-Garden.jpg



Yeah...sorry about the confusion

ETA...my comment about "questionable character" does not suggest that responsible owners of these dogs are bad people. They key is responsible. Too many people use dogs like this as an extension of their "badass".

That's not a pitbull. It's an American Bully. Mastiff and bulldog was bred into American Pitbulls Terriers to get those dogs. It's a mutt. APBTs (pitbulls) are not large dogs and they don't have a barrel chest.
"Every dollar you spend is a vote for what you believe in."
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
User avatar
JLives
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16030
Likes: 3586 posts
Liked in: 6135 posts
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 11:53 am

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Oct 26th, 2017, 6:00 pm

I have a pretty good fence around my place. One purpose of which is to keep other people's dogs out (also works pretty well to keep coyotes out). If this guy is so worried he could build a fence too, but he certainly doesn' t have to, it's his choice. If he doesn't like the laws in his area, he can certainly make a case for changing them.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8269
Likes: 862 posts
Liked in: 2163 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 6:16 pm

That all takes time and already the bylaw has been disregarded regarding the number of dogs one can own.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48153
Likes: 1362 posts
Liked in: 7165 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Oct 26th, 2017, 6:19 pm

Superkitty142 wrote: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 ?

The dogs were tied up but unattended when bylaw showed up - the big dogs had already attacked the little dog.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48153
Likes: 1362 posts
Liked in: 7165 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby hobbyguy » Oct 26th, 2017, 8:36 pm

This would get people's attention: http://www.gooddogsa.com/prescribed-breeds-of-dogs

$5,000 max fine for a prescribed dog running loose with no muzzle :D
Anyone but Scheer - career pols are know nothings.

Catsumi likes this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 9658
Likes: 2668 posts
Liked in: 10431 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 9:10 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Oct 27th, 2017, 8:55 am

The problem with Breed specific legislation is that it does not pertain to dogs of other breeds or mutts which are a problem, and includes dogs of a certain appearance who are perfectly fine, never have, and never will cause a problem. The the authorities have to run around doing DNA tests to try and prove whether or not a dog belongs to the selected groups. Which dog groups should be included? In Canada far more deaths have been caused by husky/northern type dogs, some retrievers, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, and a bunch of mutts, and "farm dogs". So a breed specific legislation doesn't fit our demographics.

Makes far more sense to require owners to have their dogs on their own property and keep them there by whatever means it takes and control them when off the property. This covers 100% of dogs, and requires no special DNA tests, simply because DNA is not much of a determinant of behavior. Much like driving a car or truck, it's the owner which determines how to ensure their "property" does not cause harm or damage, and is responsible for when the vehicle is taken off the property.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8269
Likes: 862 posts
Liked in: 2163 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 27th, 2017, 9:39 am

Silverstarqueen wrote:I have a pretty good fence around my place. One purpose of which is to keep other people's dogs out (also works pretty well to keep coyotes out). If this guy is so worried he could build a fence too, but he certainly doesn' t have to, it's his choice. If he doesn't like the laws in his area, he can certainly make a case for changing them.

It doesn't seem fair that the person who does not own dogs has to incur the expense to keep 3 aggressive dogs out of his yard. Surely the owner of the aggressive dogs should be the one who has to spend the money.

If the dog owners don't want to be responsible for making sure their dogs don't hurt anyone, then they shouldn't own dogs in the first place.
"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: 8338
Likes: 7122 posts
Liked in: 6508 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby StraitTalk » Oct 27th, 2017, 11:09 am

I have had dogs my entire life including:

-Airedale
-Bouvier
-German Shepherd (presently)
-Chihuahuas

I've grown up around other peoples dogs. I've been attacked by two dogs. I've split up dog fights. I don't love dogs any less, in fact I only respect them more having had so many experiences with them. I also have the utmost respect for those that care for, properly train and understand their dogs so that these events aren't a possibility.

That said, I am far past sick of hearing of attacks every few months and am waiting for our government to grow some balls and implement prescribed breed laws for every single breed of dog prone to aggression. Dog licensing also needs to be taken more seriously - it's basically a joke considering I would say 50-75% of dog owners never bring their dog anywhere that an RDCO officer would be to enforce it, and vets don't seem to care/don't want to be responsible.

Until this changes, expect to continue hearing about these brutal attacks. Pet ownership IS a big deal and is not taken seriously in this country at all, which means any idiot can go get a dog and neglect the *bleep* out of it.

It's not hard people - dog is born, must be tested (DNA) and licensed to an owner immediately so that the owner can be held culpable for the actions of that animal. Oh this costs money? I'm so sorry, maybe you shouldn't own a dog then.

4 people like this post.
User avatar
StraitTalk
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3695
Likes: 79 posts
Liked in: 402 posts
Joined: May 12th, 2009, 4:54 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Oct 27th, 2017, 12:19 pm

Silverstarqueen wrote:I have a pretty good fence around my place. One purpose of which is to keep other people's dogs out (also works pretty well to keep coyotes out). If this guy is so worried he could build a fence too, but he certainly doesn' t have to, it's his choice. If he doesn't like the laws in his area, he can certainly make a case for changing them.

Merry wrote:It doesn't seem fair that the person who does not own dogs has to incur the expense to keep 3 aggressive dogs out of his yard. Surely the owner of the aggressive dogs should be the one who has to spend the money.

If the dog owners don't want to be responsible for making sure their dogs don't hurt anyone, then they shouldn't own dogs in the first place.


Of course the owner should contain his own dogs on his property (by whatever means, securely tying, leash, or fence) The law states that (but does not specify the height or type of fence, just that it be effective in containing the dogs. And there are penalties if he doesn't do that. This is the same law that has stood for many many years, so the community has had plenty of time to change it if that's what they wanted. No one has said that the onus is not on the owner of the dogs to contain the dogs, I think practically everyone would agree with that. In the case mentioned (in Armstrong) it appears that the owner has done that. The complainant does not have to wait for an attack, he only has to pick up the phone and report at any time, if the dogs step off the property.
However as a property owner who does not want to have to deal with other people's dogs coming onto my property to harass my dogs, putting them at risk, there is the option of fencing my own property. IF I were truly worrried about the safety of my own property or animals ( I have others besides my dogs), I would do that. Which if the complainant has dogs (I am not sure about that) he is already in favor of. As I said, it is certainly his choice if he doesn't feel like putting up a fence that would give him peace of mind.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8269
Likes: 862 posts
Liked in: 2163 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Merry » Oct 27th, 2017, 5:04 pm

I had a difficult time following your line of thought Silverstarqueen, but I THINK you're saying that you think the owner of the 3 aggresive pitbulls in Armstrong has securely fenced his yard. But the fact is that the fence is only 4 feet high (easy for the dogs to jump) and is in a very poor state of repair.

Why should the neighbour who feels threatened every time he uses his own back yard be the one to pay to repair or raise the height of the fence, when he is not the one causing the problem?
Silverstarqueen wrote:Of course the owner should contain his own dogs on his property (by whatever means, securely tying, leash, or fence) The law states that (but does not specify the height or type of fence, just that it be effective in containing the dogs.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the by-law in Armstrong only refers to having "dangerous" dogs in a secure enclosure, having already defined "dangerous" to mean having bitten or killed someone. It doesn't say that ALL dogs need to be in a secure enclosure, which is what it should say.

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

And there are penalties if he doesn't do that.

Apparently not, if you happen to live in Armstrong. Which is presumably why the local municipality were unable to help this man when he complained about feeling threatened by his neighbour's dogs.

No one has said that the onus is not on the owner of the dogs to contain the dogs, I think practically everyone would agree with that. In the case mentioned (in Armstrong) it appears that the owner has done that.

How on earth does a 4 ft fence that is in a very poor state of repair qualify as being a secure enclosure for 3 pitbulls?
The complainant does not have to wait for an attack, he only has to pick up the phone and report at any time, if the dogs step off the property.

If 3 pitbulls get through, or over, that fence into his yard and attack him, he'll be well past the stage of being able to complain because, if he's not dead, he'll most certainly be in the hospital.
However as a property owner who does not want to have to deal with other people's dogs coming onto my property to harass my dogs, putting them at risk, there is the option of fencing my own property. IF I were truly worrried about the safety of my own property or animals ( I have others besides my dogs), I would do that.

Why on earth should the guy without the dogs, pay for a fence to enclose his neighbour's dogs? Surely the dog owner should pay for a secure enclosure for his own 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: 8338
Likes: 7122 posts
Liked in: 6508 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Oct 27th, 2017, 7:09 pm

I didn't say he (the complainant) should. I said he could.
I also said the owner is responsible for keeping his dogs on his own property (did you even read what i wrote).
Apparently he has done that. If the dogs had stepped off, even briefly I am sure he would have called dog control, as is his right. So I don't believe they have.
If the laws should be changed, then they certainly can be changed. Laws are generally established by community standards, by elected officials. This apparently is the law that that community's leaders chose, for whatever reason. If there are enough people that want a different law, the elected officials are generally pretty cooperative, if the change is warranted.
There are fines for infractions, and they are escalating in most towns. So if this guy's dogs get loose he would be fined x3. If they get loose again, he would be fined something like $150 x3, enough to make someone think it is more worthwhile to upgrade the fence.
Just because the laws in the North okanagan are a little different than the RDCO, is not reason to change them necessarily. I haven't heard of hardly anyone being bitten over quite some years here, so maybe that's why the general public doesn't see a need to change the regulations.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8269
Likes: 862 posts
Liked in: 2163 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

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