It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Montreal, CANADA: Let The Banning of Pit Bulls Begin!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:35 PM
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Yay! Another thread calling for banning something and removing more freedom.

People need to get over themselves and realize that just because they don't want to do or own something doesn't mean you get to control other people's choices.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:35 PM
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Montreal can go to hell. Banning a breed of dog because they're too sissy to go after bad owners? I think they should ban themselves from existence.

I have 3 "dangerous breed" (in the opinion of ignorants) dogs, and they're far, far less likely to bite a human than the average chihuahua. What a joke.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:47 PM
I have 2 Great Pyrenees that will tear you apart if you come in this house, meaning to do harm. They will fight to the death to protect me and my kids, if you attack any one of us, in this house or on this property.
Take them out for a walk and they are the sweetest, most "Pay Attention To Me" dogs you've ever seen. Tail wagging, wiggling, babies. They are friendly, let children ride them and generally try to lick you to death. Off this property, the only danger is getting beat to death by a wagging tail. They Are HUGE Dogs. 115 and 140 lbs. Monsters.

They were bred to fight wolves and bears in the Pyrenees Mountains. Bred. To. Kill.
Shall we put my dogs down or ban them because they could be, under certain circumstances, dangerous?
" Ban Pit Bulls" Maybe one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in a while. It is the owner who is at fault for the way those dogs behave, not the dogs themselves.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:49 PM

originally posted by: schuyler
You folks who are apologists for your beloved pit bulls need to be aware of the statistics. In a major longitudinal study covering 1982 to 2006, nearly 24 years, it clearly shows that dangerous dogs such as "pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings." In this study a cocker spaniel was responsible for one dog bite for the entire 24 years. Pit bull terriers, on the other hand, were responsible for 1,110, including 104 deaths. When are you pit bull apologists going to wake up and realize your macho tough dogs are dangerous to the rest of the population? Those interested in researching this issue should see and familiarize yourselves with the statistics. Nobody is 'singling out' pit bulls unfairly. They simply cause more damage. To defend these dogs in the face of this evidence is illogical and irresponsible. I just hope pit bull owners carry a lot of insurance.

You listed "dangerous dogs such as Rottweilers..." - are you saying the 15/15 Rottweilers I've ever known, who are all ridiculously sweet are the exception? Or that those rare dog attacks by dogs raised by people who don't know how to raise a dog, or bites because of parents who don't know how to ensure their children's safety around dogs, are enough to ban a wonderful dog breed? How absolutely absurd.

My friends son did have his face torn up badly at 2 years old, but that was by a cat.

Both of my children have spent plenty of time climbing on our Rottweiler. Sometimes, she gets annoyed and starts licking their faces.

If pit bulls went extinct tomorrow, a different breed would be chosen train aggression into. This would continue on until the last breed, something like a cocker spaniel was rife with viscious examples.

Or, just ban dogs, cats, guns, knives, baseball bats, knives, vehicles, alcohol, furniture (causes stubbed toes), glass (sometimes it breaks and a sharp piece can cut you.)

Ugh, at least it's just a monitory of ignorant fascists who think this is the way to solve problems.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:54 PM

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Banning irresponsible pit bull owners would make more sense.

Just sayin'

Btw, that is a contradictory until the pit bull mauls someone the homeowner is safe until after the incident occurs?

FYI, just for example:


So you might as well throw in the top 5 breeds in with dogs.

Heck, just ban all dogs if you are going to ban away with one right?

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:02 PM
Love Pit Bulls. Sweetest things ever. There's a reason they were called the "nanny dog".

Bad ones are scary because they have enough muscle to actually hurt you. Problem is the assholes who own them and teach them to be aggressive, not the "bread".

I had a little pit bull for a few years and he was incredibly gentle and sweet. Always snuggling and insisted on sleeping under the covers. Loved kids, it was pretty cute when he met one and wagged himself in half. Housing situation changed out of the blue and I had to find him a home. Got a video from the new owners with this adorable pup chewing on a bone, and a cat slowly sneaking up behind him and then pouncing which led to a "helpless" Pit Bull "pinned" on the floor and play fighting the cat.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:06 PM
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Exactly C, how's your lil guy?


I have a total of 6 on my property 3 are pits 2 olde English bulls and 1 Caucasian shepherd and the only one that needed training was the Caucasian but he has one purpose and that's to protect.

Blame people not the dogs.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:19 PM
a reply to: thesaneone

You should invite me over. Love dogs.

This is me, sans penis and about cats instead of dogs.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:38 PM
a reply to: Domo1

Animals are just awesome, they make life so much more interesting.

More then welcome but the Caucasian is not stranger friendly at all but that's the point of having him.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:41 PM
Really I am more a fan of banning owners who want those flagged dogs.

If someone is walking a rottie, pit bull, or german shepherd I try to keep my distance.
Bill Burr even does a skit on walking his pitbull. It's like walking with an open carry handgun. People will cross to the other side of the street to avoid it.

There are 100's of breeds and mixes to choose from and people with certain personalities tend to pick these dogs, studies have shown that people do pick a dog based on personality type.

When the owner has to say dont worry its nice, that is usually a bad sign.
I have a lab/husky mix, a goofball. I don't have to tell people that because his happy go lucky demeanor is obvious. People can pick up on dogs body language as well.
Those dogs typically elicit a default fear response from strangers. Which is what many owners want. If they didn't want that they could have picked a lab, golden retriever, beagle, yorkie, etc.
also of course labs are going to be on the list numbers wise because they are by far the most popular dog.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:53 PM
a reply to: jellyrev

Yes because them lil cute doggies are so cuddly and lovely, I will stick with my mean pits that will lick your face off.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:55 PM
a reply to: jellyrev

I had no intention of getting a dog, let alone a pitbull when I got mine. And I sure as hell didn't get him for any fear response. In fact it pisses me off when people freak out when they see him, because all he wants to do is meet everyone and play with them.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 11:05 PM
I've known wonderful pit bulls and really, really bad ones. In the case of the really bad ones it actually was the intent of the master that they be that way. If those guys didn't have a pit, they would have a rotty and the animal would be just as bad. So this sort of regulation won't do what it is intended to do.

Pits are no more aggressive than most breeds. But the thing is, their jaws are just so damned powerful.

edit on 6/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 11:14 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's the natural response. If someone put a bear on a leash and walked it, people would be fearful. even if it was yogi bear. One's brain can usually tell if something is possibly dangerous and thus we take precautions.

anecdotal evidence is nice, but I am talking about aggregates for personalities.

saneone, there is a reason I did not list the taco bell dog as one to get. Those dogs have small man syndrome. Plus if danger does strike just pretend that little thing is a football and punt it 50 yards.

No I don't want to ban any dog, I wish people would voluntarily pick safer breeds of dogs, but I personally know people who wanted a flagged dog to get that feeling of power so these dogs arent going anywhere's.
I also know there are special situations, like the german shepherd for law enforcement and as a farm protector dog

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 11:19 PM
The only times that I've met Pit Bulls that I was worried about, was due to how their owners were NOT taking care of them correctly.

And Pit Bulls are VERY common here where I live in SC. That's because every other ding bat red neck thinks they can make $$ by trying to puppy mill them.

In the end, Animal Control ends up taking the dogs away, who are not very happy with life.

Pit Bulls do not require any special care either. They just need lots of room to run, play and interaction with their owners, a steady diet and fresh water.

You know: just like any large breed dog.

Too many people think of Pit Bulls as some super guard dog, and try to train them as such. I've seen how some of these idiots try to do it: with malicious intent towards the dog. Beating them, harming them, and basically starving them so that anything walking around looks like a meal to them.

Pit Bulls that are taken care of, and socialized with in a loving way, are some of the sweetest and most loyal dogs I've ever seen. They have great personalities, and even seem to have a sense of humor at times.

Anyone that thinks they are a "bad breed" is a moron and needs to learn more about dogs in general, because your ignorance is REALLY showing up in this thread.

BTW - I can make statistics look like more people get killed by lawn gnomes than hand guns if I wanted to.

Polls are good for one thing, and one thing only: manipulating people into thinking something.

:walks away disgusted with the ignorant:

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 11:32 PM
a reply to: schuyler

You just put it up very clearly. What amaze me, is the selfishness of people knowing the facts and not choosing another breed. Sniff sniff I NEED THAT BREED even if it can do great harm or kill another human. Wake up people and learn to live in society. An animal is and will stay an animal. If something goes wrong with it, or if the owner is an ass, would you prefer your kid to face a pitbull or another breed? There are so many less dangerous dogs (not in term of agressivity but in term of harm it can do) ... why putting others at risk? Freedom? Yes, and my kid's too might I add.

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 11:51 PM
Public Service Announcement

Do any of you order from Amazon? That is you, eagerly anticipating your new fitbit, bottle of perfume, or mobile phone delivered to your front door by your reliable FedEx or UPS driver, right?

Well, your dog may be the nicest, kindest ball of fur to you and your family, but when they see the package car pull up, 90% of your precious pets become absolute maniacs.

YOU, usually aren't home to see them coming unglued; trying to burst through the side light of the front door or the picture window in your living room. Maybe you wonder how all of those scratch marks get on the wood casing around your entry door....

Do you have a pit bull and a fence around your yard less than 5 feet high? Ever wonder why your online purchases only make it to the edge of the driveway, out near the road?
It's because your sweet baby dog with an enormous head full of teeth (who loves everybody), flew over your fence and chased your delivery driver. Or your 7-year-old kid answered the door and let your monster dog out.

If you order merchandise online, you are giving the delivery drivers permission to come to your door.
Own a dog? Don't open your door until the dog is put away, or step out and close it behind you.


Every UPS, Fedex, DHL, OnTrac driver around the globe

edit on 6/20/2016 by Olivine because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:06 AM
There are no bad dog breeds. Just bad dog owners. Period.

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:20 AM
I recognize the love that people have for their dogs.

However if you look up dog bite statistics, pit bulls are always the number one killer

I think that most pit bull owners would be just as happy with another breed.

So, I support ending breeding of aggressive dogs. Spay and neuter all existing aggressive breeds. Make it a huge fine to breed them.

BTW if you go to the pound to try to adopt a dog you'll see that the pound is crowed with pit bulls

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:44 AM
Actually this will be very sad for the dogs, not only the dogs but for the owners who are caring and great owners of their dogs.

BSL- Breed Specific Legislation.

However, the problem of dangerous dogs will not be remedied by the “quick fix” of breed-specific laws—or, as they should truly be called, breed-discriminatory laws.

Are Breed-Specific Laws Effective?

There is no evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer for people or companion animals. Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided to strongly oppose BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). Breed-specific laws are also costly and difficult to enforce.

What Are the Consequences of Breed-Specific Laws?

BSL carries a host of negative and wholly unintended consequences:

⋄ Dogs Suffer. Rather than give up beloved pets, owners of highly regulated or banned breeds often attempt to avoid detection by restricting their dogs’ outdoor exercise and socialization—forgoing licensing, microchipping and proper veterinary care, and avoiding spay/neuter surgery and essential vaccinations. Such actions can have a negative impact on both the mental and physical health of these dogs.
In addition, breed-specific laws can create a climate where it is nearly impossible for residents to adopt and live with such a breed—virtually ensuring destruction of otherwise adoptable dogs by shelters and humane societies.

⋄ Owners Suffer. Responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations. This can lead to housing issues, legal fees or even relinquishment of the animal.

⋄Public Safety Suffers. Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed, the focus is shifted away from effective enforcement of laws that have the best chances of making communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, anti-animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed. Additionally, guardians of banned breeds may be deterred from seeking routine veterinary care, which can lead to outbreaks of rabies and other diseases that endanger communities.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in