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.


OP/ED: Toronto to Ban Pits... Could the ban be Spreading?!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 07:26 AM
The pit bull is as ugly as my enemy.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:17 AM
We just adopted a 14 month old pit/staff mix from the animal shelter. He is great! The most a pit will do is lick you to death. These dogs were bred to be human frinedly, but animal agressive. Socializing the dogs at an early age can help offset the animal aggression, but it may not eliminate it. Always have a dog on a leash, no matter what breed. I can tell you, if you are outside with your lab, off a leash, and I am casually walking by with my pit on a leash, there might be a problem. My dog may not sart the fight, but he will finish it!. And guess who would be at fault?

In the early 20th Century, AmStaffs/ Pitt Bull Terriers were the most sought after family pet. They were also the unofficial mascot of the US, next to the Bald Eagle. It has been the backyard breeders who have ruined their name. I am going to try an be an ambassador for the pitbull: taking him out in public, and letting people see how friendly they can be.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:19 AM
My neighbor's "friendly" pitbull came after me, my husband, and two year old daughter last Friday....once again she was off her leash because my neighbor was being irresponsible and didn't feel like walking her. I can't describe the terror I felt knowing that damn beast was so close to my child and I couldn't do anything.
My kids don't play outside here anymore because of irresponsible pit bull owners. I don't buy the idea that the dogs can be nurtured into being gentle, they are being bred for violence. I know there are many folks out there who do truly keep their dogs under control and who would never put the dogs in a situation where someone could be hurt, but the jerks are ruining it for the rest of you.
Maybe instead of banning them outright, cities could require stricter licensing, and require oqners to carry liability insurance on them.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:42 AM
This is a complex problem.

1. They aren't just banning the Pits in Toronto, it would be a Province wide ban. That is a lot of animals. What do we do with the animals that are already here? Put them all down? Seems like genocide to me.

2. I completely agree that a large portion of the population who choose a pit for a pet are counting on their nastiness.

3. Watching TV last night (this is a very hot topic right now in Canada) they had a dog breeder on the news who said it would be very difficult to ban pits because they aren't even classified as a pure breed. In fact, they are a mixture of some 40-50 different breeds, so the trouble is, which dogs do you ban and which do you allow?

4. I don't like the idea of banning an animal when humans h\play such an integral part in their demeanor and personality. It is very much like raising children. That said, whenever a pit that had a good upbringing attacks it receives a great deal of press because of the common occurance of pits attacks that occur (not from well trained pits, but from mistreated and poorly trained animals).

5. When do we stop? So we ban pits...then another type of dog attacks somebody, do we ban that breed aswell? We have to acknowledge that these are animals and they come with risks, accidents do happen and we have to accept the fact that there is a chance that something negative may occur.

All that said, I do think something needs to be done. Perhaps there should be screening for pet owners. Maybe not everyone deserves the priviledge of owning a pet. I would certainly approve of such a measure.


posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:57 AM
RE: The post about leaving a 5 year old alone with a dog or two 3 year olds in different yards with different dogs, etc....

It's pretty dumb to leave a child, especially a small one, alone with any dog, even a family dog. Especially if the dog is the same size or bigger. No matter how well trained they are, they can be unpredictable and children can DEFINITELY be unpredictable. Not a good mix. Young children shouldn't be left alone with any dog.

And 7 shots to kill a dog? That's criminal and you definitely shouldn't be allowed to handle a firearm anymore. Maybe you enjoy it too much to make it a quick job?

It doesn't matter if they're banned or not. They're like guns. Ban them and the ones causing the most trouble will still find a way to get them anyway. I wish more time would be spent passing laws for hard punishments on those who abuse animals, especially for organized sport purposes. Get the puppy mills and fight breeders too. Hard time.

I met a guy one day with some people and he had a cute little pit puppy. He was playful with it and we talked and then he mentioned fighting. Turns out he bred and trained them for it. I told him I thought he was a seriously low piece of garbage and a waste of skin that some other worthwhile human could be standing up in right now. Said I hoped they all turned on him and tore him to bits until he died and then went to wait in the car. I then found out that there were several in this crowd. Nobody would say anything TO them, but said they thought it was wrong. Nobody will say what they think. I asked if they were afraid of the guys, but they said no... it just wasn't for them to tell someone what to do. I told them I thought they were just as bad, then, to know it's going on and stand by doing nothing.

Personal responsibility is important. Responsibility for your pets and children is important. But social responsibility is also important. Turn them in. Even if it's only a very very strong suspicion, do it.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:17 AM
Get dogs out of cities if they can't learn use a toilet properly.

I live in holland and over here some streets are, quite frankly, DISGUSTING. Covered in dog doo! Well the question arises: should dog be allowed in cities?

OK if you can show you own a garden big enought for the dog the poo in fine! But letting you dog oout to fowl the pavement is just out of order!
And the poor dog, imagine having to wipe your bum on concrete! I am sure the dog would prefer dirt as was natures intent.

Ok that was off topic.. adressing the topic at hand:

Dog bread for violence and fighting should be put down, and breeding ban imposed till they are no more, simple! Its jsut unfair to let these dogs live. Imagine being bread for fighting... take a soldier for example. not just any one who signed up but a geneticly engineered one. No further imagine you get kicked out of the army or whatever and are forced back into civillain life. A few yaers down the line and you've manaed to keep you agression in edcheck but one day.. pop.. there it goes and before you know it you've kill someone. Now you face the death penalty (or being put down in the case of the dog).
Just put them down now! Oh and forget the owner... if he can learn to love a pit-bull just imagine the bond he could form with a labrador!

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:21 AM

Dog poo in cities in Canada is less of a problem...not completely resolved, but you can usually walk down the street without stepping in something foul. In Canada there is a strict fine if caught leaving animal feces on public property. You will notice if visiting here that when people take their animals for a walk they usually take a bag to pick up excrement...nasty perhaps, but a small price to pay for clean streets.

As for putting the dogs down, please see my post above for the complications and ethical issues involved.


posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:27 AM

An American icon, who doesn't deserve such a bad name!

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Netchicken
Excellent move Toronto!
Nice to see some people with common sence for once.

OK people say its the owner who is the fault, not the dog. In that case just ban pitbull owners (they can take their dogs with them when they leave)

Problem solved!

Not only should they be banned because of their aggression, but becuase they are PLUG UGLY as well. So there are asthetic and safety reasons as well ....

I am quite offended by your comment NetChicken. As most of you all know, these dogs are bred to bit down with such force in their jaws. These dogs are bred to not feel pain.

It is the minority of them who actually act out on agression.

We need to know when not to attack the dogs.

We need to know when not to talk to the dogs.

The population need to be educated.

And no, my Spud isn't ugly.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:15 PM
Why pick a fight with a mod who insults his own members....?

Did you U2U LadyV with your comments about her ideology, as I suggested earlier netturkey...I mean...chicken?

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:15 PM
That's sad. I have a pit bull. She's the most loving dog I've ever had. I have seen her get wicked, but it's rare.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
Why pick a fight with a mod who insults his own members....?

Did you U2U LadyV with your comments about her ideology, as I suggested earlier netturkey...I mean...chicken?

When I saw this thread growing I popped in here, so you may now stop worrying EnronOutrunHomerun, that I may not see Netchicken's opinion of me, it seems rather important to you that I see it. I don't know you really think his/her opinion of me will hurt or upset me!? My only thought was, "wow, what a closed minded human", especially to be a moderator. I'm just one of those people that doesn't associate myself with those that won't bother to study and learn, but bottle themselves up...I have had Pits, so I know the other side of them. Those that have never owned one, have no idea what they are talking about...only what they hear and calm down now as I have seen it...very strange for you to care so much...

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:02 PM
Say what you will. The stats speak for themselves. The Pit is the #1 killer. And it has a large lead. It has been bred to kill. The bite is like no other dog. A bit so powerful that it can crush the bones in your hand. You don't hear about a pair of Goldens attacking a little kid and killing it. You don't hear about a Dalmation grabbing a baby out of a seat and mauling it. No. Its only the Pit that has this agressive nature. It isn't a dog that is in the middle of the pack when it comes to bites and kills and it just gets bad press. No. It is #1 in kills over a 20 year period and it is at or near the top in total bites along with 2 other notoriously bad dogs.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by LadyV
When I saw this thread growing I popped in here, so you may now stop worrying EnronOutrunHomerun, that I may not see Netchicken's opinion of me, it seems rather important to you that I see it. I don't know you really think his/her opinion of me will hurt or upset me!?

you calm down now as I have seen it...very strange for you to care so much...

I just thought it was inappropriate behavior for a mod...and considering he said it after you said you would not return to the thread I figured it was worth bringing attention to....What can I say, I'd expect the same if someone trashed me after I left a thread....

On another note...I'm going to try and find some actual stats on dog attacks....I'll post them here whether or not they coincide with my belief that pits are not responsible for the majority - I believe the media taints public opinions....but I admit to maybe being wrong here, so I'll look it up...

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:33 PM
Here's what I found....

Many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year.

Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.

Pit Bulls in particular have been in a firestorm of bad publicity, and throughout the country Pit Bulls often bear the brunt of breed specific legislation. One severe or fatal attack can result in either restrictions or outright banning of this breed (and other breeds) in a community. While any severe or fatal attack on a person is tragic, there is often a tragic loss of perspective as to degree of dangerousness associated with this breed in reaction to a fatality. Virtually any breed of dog can be implicated in a human fatality.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

Basically....these aggresive dogs represent a infinitesimal portion of the privately owned dog community...and innapropriate human interaction with these "vicious" breeds is almost always the cause of an attack...

But I believe in looking at multiple

The number of dogs. Approximately 35 percent of American households owned a dog in 1994, and the US dog population exceeded 52 million. (Wise JK, Yang JJ. Dog and cat ownership, 1991-1998. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;204:1166-7.)

The number of victims. A survey by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta ("CDC") concludes that dogs bite nearly 2% of the U.S. population -- more than 4.7 million people annually. (Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a problem? Injury Prev 1996;2:52-4.) Almost 800,000 bites per year -- one out of every 6 -- are serious enough to require medical attention. Dog bites send nearly 334,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (914 per day). (National Center for Health Statistics National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for 1992-1994.) Bites to children represent more than 50 percent of the total number cases. 26% of child-victims -- compared with 12% of the adults -- require medical care. (Ibid.) Getting bitten by a dog is the second most frequent cause of injury to children. (Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emegency departments," JAMA 1998;279:53.) Every year 2,851 letter carriers are bitten. (US Postal Service.) I'm feeling ya here Intrepid
An American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog each year. (CDC.)

The number of fatalities. In the U.S. from 1979 to 1996, 304 people in the U.S died from dog attacks, including 30 in California.The average number of deaths per year was 17. Most of the deceased were children. ("Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities -- United States, 1995-1996," MMWR 46(21):463-467, 1997.) The chances that the victim of a fatal dog attack will be a burgler are one in 177; the odds that it will be a child are 7 out of 10. However, fatalities are highly unusual. For every fatal dog bite in the United States, there are 230,000 bites that are not treated by a physician.
The financial impact of dog bites. Dog attack victims in the U.S. suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) That $1 billion estimate might be low -- an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that, in 1995, State Farm paid $70 million on 11,000 claims and estimated that the total annual insurance cost for dog bites was about $2 billion. (Voelker R. "Dog bites recognized as public health problem." JAMA 1997;277:278,280.) One in three homeowner insurance claims pertains to a dog bite. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) The average insurance payout is $12,000. (Ibid.)
Dog bites are on the rise: Although the number of dogs in the United States increased by only 2% between 1986 and 1996, the number of dog bite injuries requiring medical treatment rose by 37%. (Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emegency departments." JAMA 1998;279:51-53.)

The scene of attack is home or a familiar place. The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.

Dogs bite family and friends. The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.

These are some interesting facts that can be taken and twisted however you want...I was surprised to see that Americans have a one in 50 chance every year of getting bit....I guess if I don't get bit before I'm 50 then it's all downhill from there

Here's some links to more statistics...I decided not to post them in the interest of keeping this perhaps slighlty shorter
Here is an excellent quote from the last link, right above what I'm typing here, that encapsulates my opinion on this matter:

Dog breeds the CDC considers the highest risk? Pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, Doberman pinschers, Chow Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. But are these the breeds that actually are the highest risk? And "Huskies" is a class of dogs, not a breed. What kind of "Huskies" are they even talking about? The generic term of Husky refers to Siberian Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, Samoyeds, and other Northern type breeds which may or may not even be purebred. Are they talking about Siberian Huskies? If so, then why don't they specify that?

Many homeowners insurance companies and local law enforcement jurisdictions use these statistics to decide what dog breeds they will discriminate against or out right ban. While statistics on dog bites are nice, they actually tell us almost nothing about the issue, and are the basis of many pieces of flawed dog ownership restrictions or outright banning legislation.

In the first place, the dog breed identifications in the reports are dubious at best. Entire categories of bites are frequently not included in the statistics, such as the so-called provoked bites, which may or may not be such. In addition many dog bites are never reported, especially if they do not require medical treatment.

To use statistics alone in determining who an insurance company will sell to and who they wont ignores the basic issues of personal responsibility and just how many of those so-called statistical bites were caused by the human involved and not the dog, besides being downright racist. If insurance companies refused to provide homeowners insurance to all black people there would be a national outcry. Yet many companies today refuse to sell insurance to someone who owns a dog, regardless of the dogs history and temperament.

Sorry if this is a bit of a long post, but those of the opposing opinion would perhaps benefit to reading it...

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:34 PM
Enron.. I had posted stats about fatalities due to dog bites. It was in this topic I beleive. That or the one where the guy lost his... um... well.. you know. lol. There was another one that had stats on total dog bites but it was in a big table and I had no idea how to post it in the forums where it could be properly viewed. It had the Pit #3 in total bites. Not far behind the Rottweiler and I believe the Chow was the other. And those were the two other bad dogs I was talking about. These 3 dogs were the vast majority of bites. #1 in fatalities and #3 in total bites. That isn't the media talking. Thats just hard cold facts.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:39 PM
Indy - Sorry man...I must not of seen it...I think I got some good stuff in the above post too that helps to not only see how these stats can be twisted but also to help this arguement along in the fact that yes it is true that pits are naturally agressive, but by looking at the numbers how one can make an inference for the need of bringing about social adjustment and stricter ownership rules.....

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
I just thought it was inappropriate behavior for a mod...and considering he said it after you said you would not return to the thread I figured it was worth bringing attention to....What can I say, I'd expect the same if someone trashed me after I left a thread....

Lady V can't take the heat throws a tantrum and leaves. Netchicken points it out and now you'e trying to villify him

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by mad scientist
Lady V can't take the heat throws a tantrum and leaves. Netchicken points it out and now you'e trying to villify him

Last post on this issue - think of me what you will...I'm not taking anyone's bullet....allow me to quote his statement here:

LadyV's response is an attempt to reduce the stature of the individuals and minimise the validity of their comments when they disagree with her stance on the topic. It helps to protect the ego from ideas that conflict with her own beliefs, so that she does not have to face the evidence of others, and instead stay comfortable in her own views..

The first part I can agree with....he should have left it at that, considering he is responsible for showing some degree of maturity on ATS as a mod...but the part in bold is just a cheap shot where he inserts his opinon with a blanketed attack

If I were to "villify" netchicken I could say a lot worse....but that's not my intent - I'm trying to point out that IMHO he crossed a line he shouldn't have as a mod by psycho-analyzing her while her back is turned...who cares if it's right or's not appropriate behavior for a forum

Say what you will about my choice to point it out, but that's my resolve on the issue....

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by LadyV

I had 12 stitches in my face from a miniature schnauzer! ANY dog has the potential to bite. I have been grooming for 18 years, Vet Teched for 5 years prior to that, I have never been bitten by a large breed dog, but I have had tons of them from smaller breeds and cats! I am so sorry this happened to you, but it doesn't prove Pits are mean.

Thank you, Lady,,, you seem to be one of the few people on this topic that really knows what they are talking about. I've owned pits my whole life and I have NEVER been bitten by one. Neither have my kids, neighbors or friends. All of my dogs were family animals and house broken.
A dog, no matter what the breed, will be the type of dog it was raised to be. I choose to raise mine to be a part of the family unit,,, and they behave accordingly.
People who make broad sweeping characterizations of ANY breed are ill informed and know NOTHING of what they speak. And the ones who have made the same generalizations about pit owners,,, well the same goes. You have no idea what you are talking about and are simply showing your ignorance.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in