It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Pitbull Ban comes into effect... (from ATSNN)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Although this may not hit close to home if you live in the states, but anyone living in Ontario Canada has to deal with a new pitbull ban. A bill passed yesterday to ban pitbulls from the province. The new act requires breeding of the dog to be stopped immediately and current owners have to spade/neuture their dogs.
 



www.thestar.com
Once the law goes into effect, it will mean no more new pit bulls in the province of Ontario.

The legislation also calls for a crackdown on any dog that bites, attacks or is a menace to public safety. Owners will face fines of up to $10,000 and, for the first time, a jail term of up to six months, while fines for corporations will be up to $60,000.

The pit bull ban has been an emotional issue among dog breeders, owners and various organizations, who complained the act was far too sweeping. Prominent lawyer Clayton Ruby, acting on behalf of the pro-pit bull lobby, has said he would challenge the legislation on constitutional grounds.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I must say this is the most ridiculous act to go through in quite a while. It seems once again the governement is taking away the responsiblity of the owner and putting it on the dog. Why is it that the owner is getting away scott free and the dogs are the ones to suffer? I personally beleive its the owners fault for the lastest pit bull attacks and the owner dictates how the dog will act around people.



[edit on 3-3-2005 by LuDaCrIs]

[edit on 3-3-2005 by LuDaCrIs]

[edit on 3-3-2005 by LuDaCrIs]

[edit on 3-3-2005 by LuDaCrIs]




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I know a few pitbulls owned by friends here in New York and they are the sweetest most loving dogs. I think this ban is stupid, intolerant and pushed by a nanny state.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I totally agree. The ban is just crazy.
( if red cars kill more people a year than blue, should red cars be banned??)

I am a pitbull owner. We adopted him from the local animal shelter. We have a 1 1/2 year old baby at home. They get along just fine, if not better than myself and the dog. Pitbulls have an un-due bad rap. In the 70's it was the Rottweiler that was ' the man eating killing machine'. In the 80's,it was the Doberman. Just sad really.......

BTW, the American Pitbull Terrier was the #1 dog of choice as a family pet in the early 20th century. "Pete" on the Little Rascals was a Pitbull (They wanted to go with a Collie at first, but the dog was too aggressive, heh). RCA records still uses the Pit as their Trademark.

God Bless the Pitbull, The 'Unofficial American Mascot"







The Killing machines at Work!













posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
You need at least a link for the text quoted. More would be better. Here are a few to help out.

Links

www.ctv.ca...

www.cbc.ca...

www.canada.com...

Relavent ATS Threads

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 05/3/3 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   
They are not allowed on military housing, I remember back in the early 90s they made that a no-no in family housing, I have a friend that had poppy mix but the MPS and family housing made them get rid of it.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
If a pit bull injures someone the owner should pay dearly. $10,000 and 6 months in jail would be enough to test the love for any pit bull, unless, of course, the pit bull kills someone--then the owner should get life in prison.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Kazi,

In your opinion, does that go for any dog, or just the pitbull?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Living in the Toronto area, I have spoken with a few liberal and conservative Canadians regarding this issue. Both sides seem to agree that increases in pitbull attacks can be contributed to a "fad" that local hooligans, hoodlums, drug dealers etc. adore having a vicious dog as a companion/protector. Obviously I'm not trying to stereotype all pitbull owners, however this explanation does give substance to the increase of pitbull attacks in Ontario.

A few months back I remember police cracking down on a local marijuana grow house operation which had 4 viciously trained pitbull's on the premises.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
It should start in the U.S. first. Many minorities in New York, Detroit and New Orleans soeak pitbulls with gasoline and burn them if they lose a fight.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Breed Specific Laws are wrong, and should not even be presentable before a court of law. Many of the supporters of these bills probably coudn't tell the difference between a pit and a Boxer.

We need to save the Pitbull from this type of legislation. This breed is loyal, courageous, and friendly. They will defend the family to the death. Their drive, to 'aim to please' their masters, has made them an effective, aggressive dog. When in the wrong hands.

BTW, if I wanted an aggressive dog, I would have gotten a Chow, or a Labrador. They bite more people a year than Pits do.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Pit Bulls have been banned for years in certain areas. Dade County, Florida, for one (gangbangers and drug dealers use them to protect their property because apparently their aggressiveness is easy to manipulate.) They're considered a weapon, about 8 years ago a little old lady who was walking her poodle two streets over from where I live was attacked by a pitbull. Both she and her poodle were killed. Terrible.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
How bout we neuter the owners


Seems that would take care of more than just the dog issue!



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Posting threads like this on ats is akin to banging a stick along a fence with a dog behind it, it drives the pro pitbull members nuts


Good move, if it was a dangerous car, type of gun, weapon, etc they would all be banned or controlled. Pitbulls are no different, just posessions of prestige for those needing an ego boost.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
Living in the Toronto area, I have spoken with a few liberal and conservative Canadians regarding this issue. Both sides seem to agree that increases in pitbull attacks can be contributed to a "fad" that local hooligans, hoodlums, drug dealers etc. adore having a vicious dog as a companion/protector. Obviously I'm not trying to stereotype all pitbull owners, however this explanation does give substance to the increase of pitbull attacks in Ontario.

A few months back I remember police cracking down on a local marijuana grow house operation which had 4 viciously trained pitbull's on the premises.



This just proves the point i was trying to make: that its the owners fault for making the dog viscous. I feel sorry for the peaceful pitbull owners who love their dogs and have to deal with this nonsense.

The other thing is, pitbulls arent the only potentially dangerous dogs out there. What about routwielers(excuse the spelling) and dobermen(again...excuse the spelling)?????....Are we gonna see a ban of these dogs in the near future, now that pitbulls arent allowed???



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Maybe people should be allowed to have pitbulls if they are only ever INSIDE the person's house.... Then again that'd probably constitute animal cruelty... I once knew a guy up in Delaware who kept a LION in his house - never had any problems, but I wonder how the poor guy got exercise or fresh air... I bet the guy never had any intruder problems though (sometimes when out walking my grandmother's jack russell you'd actually hear the lion roar! scared the crap out of me and the little dog). Anyway, if I recall correctly if a vicious pitbull attacks a person the owner (at least down here) could be killed with the appropriate degree of murder charge just like if he blew a hole in the guy with a gun. Plus the poor dog (it didn't know any better!) would be destroyed.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Maybe people should be allowed to have FIREARMS if they are only ever INSIDE the person's house.... Then again that'd probably constitute firearm cruelty... I once knew a guy up in Delaware who kept a CANNON in his house - never had any problems, but I wonder how the poor guy got exercise or fresh air... I bet the guy never had any intruder problems though (sometimes when out walking my grandmother's jack russell you'd actually hear the CANNON roar! scared the crap out of me and the little dog). Anyway, if I recall correctly if a vicious FIREARM attacks a person the owner (at least down here) could be killed with the appropriate degree of murder charge just like if he blew a hole in the guy with a CANNON. Plus the poor FIREARM (it didn't know any better!) would be destroyed.


Sorry, and no offense intended to anyone, much less Alpha... Just a quick topical substitution to show, I think, where the real problem lies. It is with the people who thoughtlessly own or "mis-train" the animal, just like the people who thoughtlessly own or mis-use a gun/ Unfortunately, the simplest and quickest way to legislate any fix of a bothersome item, be it a gun, a dog, a whatever, is to ban it.

Guess maybe we need to think in terms of banding together and making statements that the government will listen to. No... Not a civil war or revolution, but get out and get in front of the government and make ourselves heard.

Government by the people and for the people!!!
WAKE UP HUMANITY!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join