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.

 

Ontario Pit Bull ban not reducing BITES

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Ontario Pit Bull ban not reducing BITES


www.thestar.com

Ontario’s five-year-old ban on pit bulls has not reduced the number of dog bites in the province by much, says a study by the Toronto Humane Society, which urges the government to review the law.

On Wednesday, the society released statistics on dog bites reported by the province’s local health integration networks and medical officers of health between 1999 and 2009.

There were 5,714 incidents in 2004, the year before the Liberal government rolled out breed-specific legislation to ban the sale and importation of pit bulls. Owners were required to get their pit bulls spayed or neutere
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.canada.com
www.we stword.com
www.thetruthaboutpitbulls.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Columbia Mo SWAT Raid 2/11/2010. Cops Shoot Pets With Children Present
www.belowtopsecret.com...&colorshift=yes&colorshift=yes&colorshift=yes




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
This is Nazism against mans best friend. As the article states the reduction of dog attacks has not gone down.

There are many of these laws in the USA as well as the rest of the world. All have proven to not work.

The slogan is so true "BAN THE DEED NOT THE BREED"

We, the people need to help this group beat this law.The group has gotten it to the Supreme Court level but the government is delaying and trying to financially break them as they know the law will be repealed.
Ontario.
Twice the size of Texas.
Three times the size of Germany.
Five times the size of the United Kingdom.
Home to a breed-specific legislative ban covering the largest geo-political area in the world.
A ban that discriminates not by action or deed, but by physical appearance.
A ban that targets not only "pitbulls", American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and
Staffordshire Bull Terriers", but haunts *ANY* pure-or-crossbred canine bearing a substantial physical
resemblance to one of the aforementioned. The 2004 brainchild of the province's Attorney General,
Michael Bryant, the now-infamous Bill 132 was conceived as a vote-grabbing safety measure; a poorly
designed and ill-appointed law geared to target the public's visceral fear of dog attacks. Implemented in
August of 2005, retribution against innocent canines and their owners was swift.
Walking your pet without a muzzle now means risking seizure without warrant. Visitors and residents
alike travelling without certified documentation face the spectre of breed (mis)-identification looming
around every corner.
Pets showing natural protective tendencies within the boundaries of their home turf may now be turned
in on the suspicion of being 'menacing'. This last is particularly frightening; simple barking at passersby
can be interpreted as 'threatening behaviour' by control officers with no training in either animal
behaviour or breed identification. Failure to pass muster on any of the above can and will result in a oneway
trip to the official's choice of humane society, pound or research facility. There are few second
chances.
This ban has raised both the conscience and ire of dog lovers from British Columbia to Prince Edward
Island . It's not just a 'pit-bull' issue. It's a Rottweiler issue, a Doberman issue. It's about Boxers and
Bullmastiffs, Bull Terriers, Neapolitan Mastiffs and Boston Terriers, Great Danes and Vizslas... are you
surprised? These are but a handful of breeds that have come under scrutiny and endured public censure
following the implementation and subsequent over-broad interpretation of A.G. Bryant's Bill.
From the beginning, concerned groups and individuals questioned the feasibility of a legal challenge - a
challenge directed at the violation of constitutional rights, yet still allowing for the punishment of those
who willfully put animals and people in harm's way. Prominent trial and constitutional lawyer Clayton
Ruby was immediately retained.
With the help of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Canada, the Golden Horseshoe American Pit
Bull Terrier Club, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada and Advocates for the Underdog, a
coalition was formed including the Dog Legislation Council of Canada and aptly named "Banned-Aid".
This group was to play a prominent role in the ensuing months, bringing the plight of Ontario's dogs to
those who otherwise might never have considered the gravity of the situation. Their determination paid
off; the spring of 2006 saw a trial date set, and on May 15th, 16th and 18th, Justice T. Herman heard final
arguments from both sides in Ontario's Superior Court.
Page 2 of 2
The battle, however, is not quite over. Government-initiated delays have resulted in the near-doubling of
our legal fees, which have long passed initial "guesstimates" and are closing in on the 1/2 million mark. In
this we are running out of time. Generous time allowances by Clayton Ruby's offices have merely slowed
the inevitable, that being we *MUST* come up with $ 100,000 in two weeks' time for this case to continue.
The importance of being present to rebut this new motion cannot be overestimated. Lacking an opposing
legal presence gives government lawyers carte blanche while countering from our side greatly increases
the chances of any further introductions being struck down as frivolous. Ruby strongly believes this
attempt to be a last-gasp 'smoke screen' effort by our opposition, carefully orchestrated to bring us to our
financial knees. We cannot let this happen. If we have come this far, it is in large part due to the faith of our
members, friends and allies - individuals who possess the same gritty determination hallmarking the breeds
this Bill seeks to eliminate forever.
We are so very, very close. For the latest updates and news briefs, we urge you to visit the Dog
Legislation Council of Canada website at:
www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org
If you believe - as we do - that victory is a mere leash-length away, then please help by donating to the
Ontario Legal Challenge of Bill 132 through the following agents:
Banned-Aid Coalition - www.BannedAid.com


The 3rd link is from Denver CO Amazing story!

www.thestar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Ridiculous the family pet needs to be hidden in the attic like Anne Frank.

Of course the ban doesn't do anything. No ban ever does anything.

The problem with dogs attacking is rooted solely with the owners of the dog. A ghetto trash inbred moron who wants an angry agressive dog will have an angry agressive dog whether it's a chiuahua or one of the many breeds commonly referred to as "bull dog".

Interestingly enough those "bull dog" breeds consistently score higher on the temperment scale than many other breeds commonly thought of as "safe".

There is no difference between a ban on a breed of dog and a ban on a race of human.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
This is stupid.

I've owned dogs all my life, especially Pit Bulls, we have 3 right now at home. They are the most wonderful dogs in the world, like any other breed, if trained correctly.

A ban on something only makes for a black market. People are still going to want these dogs, and now even more so.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
As previously stated, it's not bad dogs, it's bad owners.

If a dog is treated with kindness, respect and discipline it will be an excellent family member.

Personally I love Rottweiler/Labrador cross, really nice temperament on them. Pure-breeding dogs, I tend to think is cruel, it often leads to genetic defects and health problems in later life. I want a dog as protection for home and family, but a dog that will protect because it loves its family, not because I've conditioned it to be angry.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by unruly1
 


How can a banned dog bite anyone?
You folks must be nuts.
And yes if a dog kills someone the owner should face
the same penalty. Maybe then they would be more responsible.
If the dog seriously injures someone the owner should lose all
their material possessions and have their salary garnished.

People with dogs that bark incessantly hate their neighbors
and thats why they have such dogs.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by unruly1
 


Afterseeing a friend ripped up by one of these dogs i cant help but support the restrictions on certain breeds.
These thing were bred to tear the jugulars from BULLS.Not to cuddle on the sofa with seniors like a ra doll cat.

By all means,have a dog dogs are great but why do you even want a dog that was created to kill? a genetic creation,made by man to be strong& brutal.

Yeah it does influence the behaviour of the dog when a socially backward thug has raised it, yet i am still have not heard the case of some anti social devients poodle killing a kid.

And when it happens you get the same line, gee ripper was always suh a good boy, he never did this before.......



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
 


I disagree.

Regardless of whether the dogs were bread to be killers or not, it's all in how you raise them.

They have physical characteristics that were bred into them to make them better predators, but from a psychological standpoint, they are the same as any dog.

My 3 pitbulls, 2 Red Nose, 1 Blue Nose, all pure bread, I have had them for 2, 4 and 7 years respectively, around all of my children, the youngest of which is currently 4.

They have NEVER even made a loud noise around those children in a violent way.

We must blame the owners for raising dogs who are meant to "protect" and kill people who come along.

That's the problem. Not the dog.

That would be equivalent to banning a Honda Civic from personal used because it's the vehicle that's involved in the most accidents per year.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
 




That would be equivalent to banning a Honda Civic from personal used because it's the vehicle that's involved in the most accidents per year.

~Keeper


If that car was built for the specific purpose of inflicting as much harm as possible to the other vehicle in the event of a collision i might accept that as a fair comparison.

I doubt if "Cletus" had have owned a poodle my friend would have almost died,been in hospital for so long and bear scars 25 years on if the "nice dog who has always geat with kids and never even barked at anyone was indeed a poodle.

IF you read my entire post you will see i agree i the temprement is directly infuenced by the owner.The problem I have is that 75% of people i see with the dogs in question have one front tooth and a massive chip on their shoulder.The lawmakers,iguess are unable to restrict ownership to people who can be trusted to raise a genetic hulk so there has been a blanket ban

I am a novice on US gun laws but i believe you are allowed to have guns.But with restrictions on some weapons?Not because it is assumed anyone with that class of weapon WILL go nuts and kill everyone but because if they DO you know said damage will be disasterous.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Actually these dogs were breed to be around humans. Wether or not they were fighting dogs they needed to be handled by humans and needed to be around their masters family. Now they are hard headed and stubborn dogs not for some people with no experince with dogs but they are great pets if trained right. I've seen German sheppards and other dogs that are more vicious then most pitbulls I've been around. So breed specific laws are a joke and I know that's in Canada but the pitbull was Americas symbol during WWI and was our most beloved dog till idiots got a hold of them.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
 



I'm all for restrictions, I agree that we have to keep the "crazies" away from the "killer bread" dogs.

I'm just saying that you can't blame the dog for any of it. They are a product of human innovation.

As stated, my dogs are amazing, and they aren't small ones either, my smalles female weights 95 pounds. She's a big girl.

People cross the street when they see me coming with them, until they see how friendly they are.

I live in Canada, where we don't have the right to bear arms, which IMO is a damn good thing, but in the US yes, your right.

It's gun ownership with registration/restrictions.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Pit bull bans are a ridiculous political maneuver and the lore surrounding pit bulls is absurd.

I'm fostering a rescued pit bull right now. A dog pound would have immediately destroyed the dog. Yet, this dog is the sweetest, most loving creature I've ever had the opportunity to foster.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
It's funny when a mistreated or neglected child acts out in a harmful or criminal manner people run to make excuses and put the blame on the adults responsible for the welfare of the child and jump through hoops to rehabilitate the child.

Same happens to a dog they just kill the dog.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


With all due respect to you as a responsible dog owner, in the eyes of the lawmakers it is easier to ban the breed,any attempt to restrict the HUMAN who owns the dog would be fairer,but would have civ libbers up in arms.

Perhaps a special licence with specific requirements would be the compromise, one that specifies the appropriate rights and responsibilities required to gain the privelidge to own such a stong animal.

Funnily enough i was approached by such a dog today while in the park with my 2 young kids,it ran circles around us and jumped on my partners leg.The owner was not only 150 metres away struggling with a second, identical dog but he was on crutches and just stood there yelling out the dogs name (it was a real violent nme too,crusher or something).

I will admit it,after what i have seen i am s@#t scared o these breeds.I just clammed up stayed still and looked away from him,after much screaming and a hobble towards him the dos owner was,eventually convinced to return to his owner.

And i must say,in general the experience only went on to onfirm my anecdotal opinion that a huge amount of strong dog owners make poor decisions,eg taking2 strong dogs to a park next to a playground with no leads and a broken leg....

At least we don't have to worry about guns.....



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
"yet i am still have not heard the case of some anti social devients poodle killing a kid."

Really? What about a pomeranian?

www.igorilla.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
 


Well I am afraid you are wrong as poodles have been known to attack.

Here are some examples of various dogs attacking

The thing that makes me laugh is Italy calling border collies and corgis dangerous!

The fact is that ANY dog, no matter what it's breed, will attack if mistreated, or in pain, or because of a mental condition (yes they can get them).

This also applies to humans. Should we start putting them down as well?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
This is typical of the policies of Dolton McGuilty. When something gets in his face, rather than deal with it, he sweeps it under the rug by banning it outright. If the voters of our fair province had anything but a sheeplike mentality, they'd vote this moron clear into oblivion. But for now, we're stuck with the mindless tool.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
 


How can you ban just one breed? As you can see from the OP, their idea isn't doing anything worthwhile.
www.igorilla.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.theleader.info...

I think we are just going to have to ban all dogs.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by antonia]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I have an 80# Amstaff and used to live in a "gated" community that prided themselves on letting the wildlife roam freely through the yards, while wondering why the cats in the neighborhood kept disappearing. At the same time some shadow cowed neighbor started a petition against my dog and another neighbors big baby of a dobie, and I do mean a big baby.
So, two largish dogs who never hurt a living thing, both discriminated on looks alone.
If your old enough to remember Little Rascals, Petey the long suffering dog that followed and watched over the children was an Amstaff and my boy is cut from the same cloth.
This is a dog that grooms his kitty and bird, who will sit against a couch if a baby is laying on it so he blocks the baby from falling( his own action untaught).
Then one day a defining moment.
I am a former construction contractor and am usually up very early.Early enough to see why NO kitties, Coyotes, 8 of them had the neighbors cat trapped under a log. When I opened the door, I saw my dog get pissed fro the fist time ever and he was gone before I could say boo.
Long story short, He decisively ran off the coyotes and groomed the flustered kitty like a nurse, while a half dozen neighbors watched!
From that point things changed drastically for my dog in the neighborhood.
When we left we had started a dog play group and my Amstaff and my friends Dobie spent many days rolling about with fussy little poodles and #tzus afterwords.
Point is all my assurances of my dogs demeanor meant nothing until his nature was demonstrated. He is fully grown now and I consider him an ambassador for his breed.I advocate for the "bully breeds" and as a family man would choose an Amstaff as a family dog before 90% of the medium to large breeds.
I should add the most "dangerous" dog I have ever had was a Queensland heeler that weighed >40lbs. He was the only dog I have had I KNEW would and could kill. He lived his life as is proper for such a dog as a farm hand.
All dogs are individuals just as humans and just as humans one cannot tell by just looking at someones appearance what kind of person they are.
discriminating on the most loyal animal partner we have in life is a sign of the times and a sign how far we are removed from living with each other and the animals of the planet.
N.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Oh right including Police dogs, guide dogs etc.

Don't daft! Ban the humans instead.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join