Pitbulls, Eh?

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

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 6th, 2017, 10:16 am

The family didn't "allow" the dog near the baby - it had escaped its enclosure.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48715
Likes: 1431 posts
Liked in: 7393 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 6th, 2017, 2:36 pm

Pilot error.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8326
Likes: 866 posts
Liked in: 2184 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Catsumi » Nov 6th, 2017, 8:14 pm

Fancy wrote:The family didn't "allow" the dog near the baby - it had escaped its enclosure.



Oh, good catch.

Guess it was ok then.
J.T.--riddled with scandal, corruption, overspending. Thinks Japan is China.

Make the Cdn wet dream come true. Vote MAD MAX
User avatar
Catsumi
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4747
Likes: 5615 posts
Liked in: 4519 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby StraitTalk » Nov 6th, 2017, 11:41 pm

Silverstarqueen wrote:DNA testing is not accurate for mutts. Example in the story I posted above. Just because these companies send you a result, does not mean that it is very accurate. The more mixed the dog is, the poorer the DNA reliability.


Fine, have it your way then if you disagree with the science behind millions of documented animal DNA tests, it's not relevant anyway.. like I said before. I guess you're okay with us treating all dogs by the same rule which means the laws stay the same. Sure, then perhaps we look at changing how it is we punish the owners of misbehaving dogs. I'm all for that too.

Silverstarqueen wrote:At any rate it has been shown over and over that dog safety is like any other activity. If people follow a few basic rules, 88% of the tragedies could be averted. Simply keeping the dog secure (and if necessary muzzled and leashed in public) would avert the vast majority of problems. DNA test does nothing toward improving the dog's behavior or the owners, and is money that could be far better spent on obedience classes or a better fence for the dog,neutering, things which have actually proven effective.


Why are you arguing a point I didn't make? I even went out of my way to explain exactly what it is I'm trying to say. Why do you always do this? Nobody ever said DNA tests do anything to improve a dogs behaviour.. who in their right mind would say that? And yes, I agree the money is better spent on all the alternatives you listed. Great!

So for the third time now, what about the actual problem at hand, which I have identified as the lack of accountability and responsibility around pet ownership, due to lack of regulation and enforcement? We can dream about a perfect world where all owners are responsible and leash/muzzle/cage their dogs but we don't live in a perfect world, so what are your real world suggestions to help fix the problem?

I hope you realise how patient I am with you. You routinely invent and misconstrue the arguments of others. You do this in literally every thread I see you in. But I actually am here to debate ideas and not just call other people wrong. To be crystal clear.

-I don't think banning breeds is necessary. Do I think it would help? Absolutely. But it would also just lead to a different breed being scapegoated as it becomes "flavour of the month" for the kinds of people who routinely neglect or abuse dogs.

-I don't think there are nearly enough rules around pet ownership. Outside of dogs that absolutely never leave private, fenced property, the modern pet dog needs to be taken seriously and treated properly if it is to be allowed in public spaces where it will be at risk of killing tens of thousands of other animals every year.

-I think if dog licensing is taken seriously and incentivized, the number of incidents will drop. (Cities across Canada including Kelowna have stricter rules and steeper fees for certain breeds which keeps dogs out of the wrong hands. The rules and licensing must be realistically enforceable.)

kevcol99 likes this post.
User avatar
StraitTalk
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3699
Likes: 80 posts
Liked in: 405 posts
Joined: May 12th, 2009, 4:54 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 7th, 2017, 7:09 am

Now here's an example of a dog control law with some teeth in it. Woman jailed because her Jack Russell seriously bit a child. This IS the type of law I am endorsing.
And, in some breed specific world, should we also ban Jack Russells?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-camb ... e-41843836
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8326
Likes: 866 posts
Liked in: 2184 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 7th, 2017, 8:28 am

From the manufacturers of doggie DNA tests:

https://help.wisdompanel.com/s/article/ ... r-Pit-bull
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8326
Likes: 866 posts
Liked in: 2184 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 7th, 2017, 8:45 am

Catsumi wrote:Oh, good catch.

Guess it was ok then.

Don't be ridiculous. Police will investigate and if warranted charges will be laid.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48715
Likes: 1431 posts
Liked in: 7393 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Catsumi » Nov 7th, 2017, 9:01 am

Fancy wrote:
Catsumi wrote:Oh, good catch.

Guess it was ok then.

Don't be ridiculous. Police will investigate and if warranted charges will be laid.


You missed my point entirely so will spell it out:

I think anyone with a small child or baby is playing Russian roulette by also keeping an unpredictable animal, such as a dog, a mountain lion, a cobra. Does it matter which? The child will be the loser as in this and many other cases.

Taking the parents or owner to court after the child is dead will not bring the child back to life. Nor will that repair the horrible damage to face and limbs should the child survive the attack.

If people are so set upon keeping a "pet" why not something that isn't lethal...rabbits?

I find your off-handedness callous and cold regarding the mauling and death of a baby from family dog attack.
J.T.--riddled with scandal, corruption, overspending. Thinks Japan is China.

Make the Cdn wet dream come true. Vote MAD MAX
User avatar
Catsumi
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4747
Likes: 5615 posts
Liked in: 4519 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 7th, 2017, 9:08 am

Catsumi wrote:You missed my point entirely so will spell it out:

I think anyone with a small child or baby is playing Russian roulette by also keeping an unpredictable animal, such as a dog, a mountain lion, a cobra. Does it matter which? The child will be the loser as in this and many other cases.

Taking the parents or owner to court after the child is dead will not bring the child back to life. Nor will that repair the horrible damage to face and limbs should the child survive the attack.

If people are so set upon keeping a "pet" why not something that isn't lethal...rabbits?

I find your off-handedness callous and cold regarding the mauling and death of a baby from family dog attack.
Now you're being more ridiculous. I didn't miss your point and the fact that the majority can have all different types of dogs without incident with young children in the house rather spells it out that cohabiting can be successful. We're talking family pets not wild animals. The fact is - police are investigating - that's hardly callousness on my part and you have no idea how I feel. I find it ridiculous to suggest no one should have a dog while raising a family - that's pretty callous to me. I raised kids around dogs and I protected both and the love shown to each other - amazing. I've been around dogs and worked with dogs all my life and have always taught my kids to respect dogs.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48715
Likes: 1431 posts
Liked in: 7393 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 7th, 2017, 9:16 am

Catsumi wrote:I find your off-handedness callous and cold regarding the mauling and death of a baby from family dog attack.

Get a grip - I'm not going to do a "knee-jerk" reaction and suggest banning all dogs from anyone contemplating a family. This won't be the last child killed by a family pet and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it except hopefully others learn that dogs are animals and need to be treated accordingly when there are younger members of the family around - the hierarchy needs to be addressed and taken seriously.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48715
Likes: 1431 posts
Liked in: 7393 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 7th, 2017, 9:52 am

Catsumi wrote:
Oh, good catch.

Guess it was ok then.


That's an offhanded remark if ever there was one.
And no one said it was OK that the dog escaped it's confinement.
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8326
Likes: 866 posts
Liked in: 2184 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Fancy » Nov 7th, 2017, 10:46 am

Catsumi wrote:Every time an attack happens, the first words from the owners mouth (if they stuck around) is "well, that's the FIRST time he did THAT!!"

From what I've read, too many attacks we read in the paper haven't been the first occurrence. There are currently approximately 7.6 million dogs owned by Canadians by 41% of households (2016) - that's a lot of dogs we don't hear about.
https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/d ... -cahi-2017
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 48715
Likes: 1431 posts
Liked in: 7393 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Catsumi » Nov 7th, 2017, 12:01 pm

Yes, I totally agree that the dog population is growing dramatically and that yes, some of these dogs are not fit to be around humans, especially small defenceless ones. Fancy, I truly am glad for your kids and all the others that were raised side by side with dogs without mishap. I wish no ill will on anyone as you can see from my posts.

I did own a dog at one time, however a move to the city meant giving it up to someone else. 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.

Yes, again, you taught your kids to respect the dog and other dogs they came across, however, we are seeing more of the type of owner who wishes others to be intimidated by their animal. Therefore, they choose these very large and unpredictable animals believing they can always control them which time and again we see that they cannot. These dogs and owners do not "respect" others ending in horrifying attacks.

I am somewhat mystified by people who will argue the fine points of which breed is the most/least likely to be a problem, should or should not be banned, but don't seem to question why they should want or need them in the first place. The issue of dog droppings alone is something to be considered. About two years ago the Province had given an approximate estimate of how much dogpoop was being created annually only within Vancouver city limits .... A staggering two large ferries full. Picture that for a moment, that is just from the park pickups. Imagine if you can how much isn't being properly disposed, left on the ground to eventually pollute waterways. In a town in Ontario there is so much that they are burning it rather than landfilling and polluting groundwater.

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. (Unless you have a vested interest in this sector such as the huge animal food industry). In Kelowna alone there are more than 25,000 (licensed) dogs and who knows how many more free range?

One of the major and ongoing disputes between neighbours involves dogs...barking, threatening, biting, pooping, and with more of them and some dog owners attitude towards others there will be more ill will. Then, get into injuries and vicious attacks, and we have even more on our plates to consider as to why one would want to own such dogs.

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. As the cost of owning, feeding, licensing, and vet care climbs these pets will simply be unaffordable and housing them unthinkable. Environmentally, not so good either.

Not that long ago only a couple of homes had a dog per city block and not the huge numbers we see today with the aforementioned problems.

To finish off with the baby death and that the suggestion that one needs to watch and restrain a dog living in the same house implies that the parent/owner has divided his attention between the two. So, why not just have one or the other.

Ok, now you can tie me to the stake and burn me alive as a heretic. Or, throw me into the dogpit to be torn to pieces. I fully realize the depth of fanaticism there is and I am prepared.

:200:
J.T.--riddled with scandal, corruption, overspending. Thinks Japan is China.

Make the Cdn wet dream come true. Vote MAD MAX
User avatar
Catsumi
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4747
Likes: 5615 posts
Liked in: 4519 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 7th, 2017, 1:37 pm

Prince George decides BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) isn't workin' for them: gives it the boot.

http://ckpgtoday.ca/article/506941/new- ... law-coming
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8326
Likes: 866 posts
Liked in: 2184 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Pitbulls, Eh?

Postby Silverstarqueen » Nov 7th, 2017, 1:53 pm

Catsumi wrote:Yes, I totally agree that the dog population is growing dramatically and that yes, some of these dogs are not fit to be around humans, especially small defenceless ones. Fancy, I truly am glad for your kids and all the others that were raised side by side with dogs without mishap. I wish no ill will on anyone as you can see from my posts.

I did own a dog at one time, however a move to the city meant giving it up to someone else. 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.

Yes, again, you taught your kids to respect the dog and other dogs they came across, however, we are seeing more of the type of owner who wishes others to be intimidated by their animal. Therefore, they choose these very large and unpredictable animals believing they can always control them which time and again we see that they cannot. These dogs and owners do not "respect" others ending in horrifying attacks.

I am somewhat mystified by people who will argue the fine points of which breed is the most/least likely to be a problem, should or should not be banned, but don't seem to question why they should want or need them in the first place. The issue of dog droppings alone is something to be considered. About two years ago the Province had given an approximate estimate of how much dogpoop was being created annually only within Vancouver city limits .... A staggering two large ferries full. Picture that for a moment, that is just from the park pickups. Imagine if you can how much isn't being properly disposed, left on the ground to eventually pollute waterways. In a town in Ontario there is so much that they are burning it rather than landfilling and polluting groundwater.

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. (Unless you have a vested interest in this sector such as the huge animal food industry). In Kelowna alone there are more than 25,000 (licensed) dogs and who knows how many more free range?

One of the major and ongoing disputes between neighbours involves dogs...barking, threatening, biting, pooping, and with more of them and some dog owners attitude towards others there will be more ill will. Then, get into injuries and vicious attacks, and we have even more on our plates to consider as to why one would want to own such dogs.

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. As the cost of owning, feeding, licensing, and vet care climbs these pets will simply be unaffordable and housing them unthinkable. Environmentally, not so good either.

Not that long ago only a couple of homes had a dog per city block and not the huge numbers we see today with the aforementioned problems.

To finish off with the baby death and that the suggestion that one needs to watch and restrain a dog living in the same house implies that the parent/owner has divided his attention between the two. So, why not just have one or the other.

Ok, now you can tie me to the stake and burn me alive as a heretic. Or, throw me into the dogpit to be torn to pieces. I fully realize the depth of fanaticism there is and I am prepared.

:200:

So you thought having a dog was fine, and likely would have been offended if someone would have said you couldn't have it , when you owned one. Now that you don't have a dog, you don't think others should either (because of all the possible downsides). Aside from say guns, or illegal drugs, or large farm animals, I can't think of many things that are not permitted to law abiding citizens. So if some family or elderly person, wants or feels they need a dog, why shouldn't they, as long as they abide by the laws? Just because a very very few dog owners (on average one or two per year in all of Canada) insist on not preventing their lethally dangerous dog from killing someone, we should contemplate a society without dogs. We accept that children (and adults) might occasionally be injured by all sorts of activities (while we do our best to prevent this outcome), but dogs somehow belong in a very different/special category of risk. With most anything else in our society, we try to mitigate the risk, design laws to accomplish this, but we shouldn't do this for dogs. THis argument makes no sense. How many other, far more dangerous activities are there (standing outside could result in being struck by lightning one day), which we should ban before dogs?
Silverstarqueen
Guru
 
Posts: 8326
Likes: 866 posts
Liked in: 2184 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 4 guests