BC Furries

You can find it here: NO to a pitbull ban in British Columbia, Canada (http://www.change.org/petitions/no-to-a-pitbull-ban-in-british-columbia-canada#)

Other related topics I have found:

Here's (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/08/28/bc-pitbull-attack-white-rock.html) what started it all again.
Reaction to calls for B.C. pit-bull ban (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/08/reaction-to-calls-for-bc-pit-bull-ban.html)
Pit bull ban not popular in Peace (http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/article/20120904/FORTSTJOHN0101/309049983/-1/fortstjohn/pit-bull-ban-not-popular-in-peace)


I am a person who hates to see bans on animals because of ignorant people. Every single person who is going to adopt an animal should have first properly researched them. I believe a proper owner that has educated themselves will almost always have an animal that is well behaved, healthy and happy. I think it's unfair that they'd even consider banning a whole breed because a bunch of people don't know how to handle their dogs. Maybe rather then ban them, they should make it so you have to have a license for the breed? As for education of a dog, that should include research into their breed, dog training courses AND, most importantly of all, a dog behaviour course. All animals give body language and generally never "randomly" attack. So being able to see the warning signs in a dog attack is a good step.

I also happen to have a friend who was attack by a Rottweiler (not a Pitbull, but another aggressive breed) when she was a kid. It severely injured her and she had to go to the hospital for medical attention, despite this though, it's one of her favourite breeds. She has recognized it isn't the breeds fault and has even told me the dog was being harassed by her younger sibling until she pissed it off enough.

I've also never met an aggressive Pitbull in my life. Ever single one I've ever known has been a big suckup, super friendly and relaxed. Some I've known even got scared when there were thunder storms. I have no personal negative view for the breed at all.

Anyways, what's your guy's opinions?

EDIT: Some YouTube videos of Pitties! xD

Dogs 101- American Pit Bull (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jh2_2z92mw#ws)
Pitbull VS Kitten (Real Love Real Fights) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czhpQe-56qg#ws)
DOG FIGHT! Pitbull vs Chihuahua vs Cat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78k2x1J03XI#ws)

I'm so smitten with Pitbulls right now. <3 =w=

funny thing about animals.  people want to ban a pit bull but i know of a dog that can be just as vicious, just as dangerous, just as loving and makes a great pet.  very obedient, these dogs are very faithful and extremely intelligent.  these dogs are so smart that they require less training than other animals such as a german shepherd or rottweiler.  these dogs have a short snout, perfect for grabbing the throat (they have a natural instinct to go for the throat), and best of all is they are very protective of their guardians - i do not like owner to describe where a dog lives and who it lives with.

the dog i refer to is not the dog you would think.  when people hear this breeds name they think of the dog as a lightweight when it comes to a possible fight.  unfortunately the part of society that shows dogs have given this breed the bad rep.  when you think of this breed you think of the way the show circuit has the hair trimmed. 

this animal is a standard size poodle.  why don't they ban poodles then? 

: tokar  September 11, 2012, 07:36:01 -06:00
funny thing about animals.  people want to ban a pit bull but i know of a dog that can be just as vicious, just as dangerous, just as loving and makes a great pet.  very obedient, these dogs are very faithful and extremely intelligent.  these dogs are so smart that they require less training than other animals such as a german shepherd or rottweiler.  these dogs have a short snout, perfect for grabbing the throat (they have a natural instinct to go for the throat), and best of all is they are very protective of their guardians - i do not like owner to describe where a dog lives and who it lives with.

the dog i refer to is not the dog you would think.  when people hear this breeds name they think of the dog as a lightweight when it comes to a possible fight.  unfortunately the part of society that shows dogs have given this breed the bad rep.  when you think of this breed you think of the way the show circuit has the hair trimmed. 

this animal is a standard size poodle.  why don't they ban poodles then? 

This is so true. That's exactly why it bothers me when they try to ban specific breeds. Every breed has the potential to be just as dangerous as any other. They all just need a proper amount of dedication and time from their owners to ensure they behave appropriately.

I sometimes joke with my friends about what would happen if suddenly all "toydogs" (ex. chihuahua) suddenly became the size of larger dogs. They're would be so many attacks it would be insane! The only reason little dogs aren't banned is because when they attack, it doesn't do much damage, but most of the time they're poorly trained and aggressive. Of course I'm not saying this goes to all small dogs, I just notice they can get away with more because they're small and "cute". xD;;;

I checked neutral. My opinion? ban the owners not the dogs, if someone wants to get any dog that takes real training to keep under control I say make them prove they are capable of handling that dog..

But then again the reason they are trying to ban the dogs as opposed to barring some people from having them is because you can never trust a person to not just lie about their intentions for the dog. They might as well have a real owners license and keep track of any complaints and be ready to ban individuals from owning certain breeds.. too bad the only way that it could even happen is if said dog attacks someone...

The real hole in the poodle argument is people don't generaly raise poodles to be "guard dogs", sure any dog can be made to be a attack dog. But people are choosing specific breeds in which to make into such things because of their physical builds or nature, if people were making poodles into guard/ attack dogs you can bet your ass they would be under the ban hammer debate pretty quick. When a situation like that arises.. there are not many options other than ban or heavily policing it.

True, ban the owners not the dogs.

I shall add a point to the list...it's ironic and sad that people have been selectively breeding dogs for all sorts of purposes - culling or letting the dogs be studs according to their own monetary interests. Forget the corruption of big companies, it's the corruption of the original - and still existing, people who experiment upon dogs and eugenically making them suit their purposes, and when the purpose becomes obsolete or too much to handle, they kill them off, as if it was the dog breed's - the pitbull in this case - fault for existing in the first place.

@Nibi: Oh, I do love toy spitzy dogs myself. If the yips and yaps don't drive you insane in the first place that is. xP

That always gets to me too. Humans decided to selectively breed to get a Pitbull in the first place. It's rather cruel to blame the animal as if it's its fault it has certain physical and personality traits. But one of the main reasons it is worse is when it bites it hurts a lot more because of their shorter muzzle, dogs with longer muzzle like a German Shepard for example won't hurt _as much_. They were also bred to fight, so no wonder they can be more aggressive, but that's why they should license it and make it difficult for just anybody to own one.

I hate to use my brother as an example but he should never own a dog, especially a Pitbull, but he got one so easily and of course, it became aggressive and attacked somebody. A lot of people get them thinking they'll be like a golden retriever or some other generally loving dog, but they aren't and it's sad so many of them are put down. :<

I guess I don't feel like I know enough to make a decision. One of the unfortunate facts is that there's no (formal, at least) mechanism in place for judging someone's suitability as an owner and selling only to suitable owners, and I have my doubts that there ever will be. I'm not even sure how that would work.

I've always been a bit alarmed by the reports about dogs that were never a problem until suddenly they were - I like to be able to put some trust in my pets and under those circumstances I'd find it hard to do so. However, at the same time I recognize that, in general, the media is in the business of selling their product before they're in the business of providing impartial information, and they often use alarmist stories to do that.

: Nibi  September 12, 2012, 01:05:53 -06:00
That always gets to me too. Humans decided to selectively breed to get a Pitbull in the first place. It's rather cruel to blame the animal as if it's its fault it has certain physical and personality traits.

I'm not sure I'd cast that as "blaming the animal" - if it's viewed strictly as a safety thing I don't think there's necessarily a blame element, though I agree that if there is any blaming to be done it's clearly breeders and not dogs that should be blamed.

I love dogs - I grew up with two border collies - so I'm certainly in favor of dogs in general.

I believe it'd be similar to how exotic animal licences works in B.C. If you're caught owning a Pitbull without one, you'd get a huge fine that could be worth thousands of dollars.

: Nibi  September 12, 2012, 04:55:24 -06:00
I believe it'd be similar to how exotic animal licences works in B.C. If you're caught owning a Pitbull without one, you'd get a huge fine that could be worth thousands of dollars.

Hm, maybe there is something for exotic animals that they can base it on to judge someone's suitability, then.

I think the solution is simple, a ban isn't the only way, give it like 40 years of selective breeding and the danger could be greatly reduced, in the mean time more violent dogs should be given free anti aggression training to increase the incentive of owners to get them trained. it wouldn't be the biggest project, could be run by charity or government, seems to me it shouldn't cost too much.

: Sevrin  September 12, 2012, 05:58:04 -06:00
I think the solution is simple, a ban isn't the only way, give it like 40 years of selective breeding and the danger could be greatly reduced, in the mean time more violent dogs should be given free anti aggression training to increase the incentive of owners to get them trained. it wouldn't be the biggest project, could be run by charity or government, seems to me it shouldn't cost too much.

Actually I like your second idea, Perhaps there should be mandatory obedience training for the more aggressive breeds (with at the very lease some subsidy for the cost of the training), at the end of which you are given a certificate/ license that shows your dog was successfully trained. That way it would be harder for someone to go "hey you got one of THOSE dogs.. they attack everyone!" cause you can whip out some hard proof and go "bitch please!" that and even in the off chance your dog attacks someone, you can at least prove that you had it properly trained and that its not all your fault.

I'm not sure that you would be able to say it's not your fault, people can un-train dogs by failing to take care of them in a certain way, so training or no training it's still greatly in part the fault of the individual, it's just that when someone gets an aggressive dog they need to know what they are getting into, not just getting a dog because they like the way it looks.

With an animal there is no, "I trained it once so it's forever trained." XD It's a constant process and you have to be constantly training and reminding them how they're supposed to behave. That's an easy mistake most people make when they get a dog, they don't think they have to keep at it for as long as they're alive for. But taking a training/behaviour course would be a good stepping stone and it'd send the owners along the right path to having a well behaved dog.

I actually like the selective breeding idea, that way people can enjoy a Pitbull without all the inherited aggression the breed has. They did that with foxes in Russia for 50 years and now have fully domesticated foxes you can keep as pets. They're super expensive but it just goes to show that personality can be genetic as well.

http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm (http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm)

i just signed and shared that petition. I believe with the right training all dogs can be amazing. If I ever got a dog I would consider a pittbull because I have NEVER met one that wasn't a complete suck up love bug. they are soooo beautiful and melt my heart with those faces.

: velvetkytten  September 18, 2012, 01:02:22 -06:00
i just signed and shared that petition. I believe with the right training all dogs can be amazing. If I ever got a dog I would consider a pittbull because I have NEVER met one that wasn't a complete suck up love bug. they are soooo beautiful and melt my heart with those faces.

I would love one too! <3 They're so sweet. :-3

Also on another note, only 185 more people are needed to sign the petition!

I'm for the ban of pit bulls.

They are demonstratively dangerous and have seriously injured and killed children with no provocation.

Yes, it largely comes down to the owner but there's no method in place for screening dog owners so the only reasonable thing to do is ban the breed.

There are lots of other dogs out there and there's no reason to own one that can so easily turn dangerous.

: Ember  September 22, 2012, 10:38:23 -06:00
I'm for the ban of pit bulls.

They are demonstratively dangerous and have seriously injured and killed children with no provocation.

Yes, it largely comes down to the owner but there's no method in place for screening dog owners so the only reasonable thing to do is ban the breed.

There are lots of other dogs out there and there's no reason to own one that can so easily turn dangerous.

Actually that is a largely false view that is mainly driven by the media. There are many breeds that have never had a ban law that have higher bite and death statistics than pitbulls.

In fact for the most part research has found that a large percentage of bites etc. has almost nothing to do with the particular breed.

Misleading information has built this common view and its unfortunate that people perpetuate it.

Here is further info.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/NCRC%20Preliminary%20Report%202011.pdf (http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/NCRC%20Preliminary%20Report%202011.pdf)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/)

Please ensure you do proper research before supporting or denouncing any possible new law. It may be damaging.

*seconding Akonite. Thanks as well, for the info links :) *

I have done my research, have you?

"In the United States, pit bull-type dogs and rottweilers were involved in more than half of 238 dog-attack deaths; they were followed by German shepherds, husky-type dogs, and malamutes in the number of deaths caused"
Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/) (AKA Your own source)

One 9-year (1979–1988) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks where breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).[36] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[37] One 5-year (1989–1994) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths where breed was recorded.[38]

One 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).[39] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were involved in most of these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks.[40] In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[40] The authors state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Attacks_on_Humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Attacks_on_Humans)

: Ember  September 22, 2012, 12:30:33 -06:00
I have done my research, have you?

"In the United States, pit bull-type dogs and rottweilers were involved in more than half of 238 dog-attack deaths; they were followed by German shepherds, husky-type dogs, and malamutes in the number of deaths caused"
Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/) (AKA Your own source)

One 9-year (1979–1988) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks where breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).[36] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[37] One 5-year (1989–1994) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths where breed was recorded.[38]

One 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).[39] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were involved in most of these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks.[40] In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[40] The authors state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Attacks_on_Humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Attacks_on_Humans)

Actually yes I have. And, apologies, but I will keep my info from the Canadian Vetrenary Journal witch has been published in several reputable places over a wikipedia article.

If you read the link I posted it even noted that american studies are base largely off MEDIA reports.

It goes on to disprove your information:

"The American Staffordshire terrier, the most widely legislated breed in Canada in the period under study, caused 1 fatality (Table 1). The rottweiler, a target of breed-specific legislation in fewer jurisdictions, and the husky, possibly an unlegislated breed, caused more fatalities, as did the mixed-breed dogs. The rottweilers, huskies, and the mixed-breed dogs were also represented in larger numbers."

Here is a link to an easy to read table:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/table/t1-cvj49pg577/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/table/t1-cvj49pg577/)

In essence based on your train of thought we should start to ban Huskies.

So you say that you can't trust news paper reports on the subject and then go on to link to a table of data from news paper reports?

Huskies are featured so heavily in your table because they are talking about sled dog attacks (and obviously huskies are the predominant sled dogs.) I don't think people around here are too concerned with a roving pack of sled dogs mowing them down.

The first wikipedia quotes comes from the Centers for Disease control:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2769900 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2769900)
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8657532 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8657532)

Or how about this from US Department of Health and Human Services:

We identified 109 dog bite-related fatalities, of which 57% were less than 10 years of age. The death rate for neonates was two orders of magnitude higher than for adults and the rate for children one order of magnitude higher. Of classifiable deaths, 22% involved an unrestrained dog off the owner's property, 18% involved a restrained dog on the owner's property, and 59% involved an unrestrained dog on the owner's property. Eleven attacks involved a sleeping infant; 19 dogs involved in fatal attacks had a prior history of aggression; and 19 of 20 classifiable deaths involved an unneutered dog. Pit bulls, the most commonly reported breed, were involved in 24 deaths; the next most commonly reported breeds were rottweilers (16) and German shepherds (10).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8657532 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8657532)



This report doesn't use any news paper reports- it uses patient medical records:

RESULTS:

Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries; for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).
CONCLUSIONS:

Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022)

Actually in the table 'Sled Dog' was a separate category from Husky. But I digress.

Regardless, we can throw numbers back and forward until our faces are blue. And I'm on my phone and frankly this is hurting my fingers. The point is most of the data is incomplete and A proper study has never been completed over if these kind of laws would have any effect. Passing any kind of law based on bad or incomplete information just isn't right. If you want to use 'dangerous breed' laws then you have to include animals like Huskies and German Sephards and Rotties. Singling out one breed because they are portrayed as killers is not right.

In fact 5% of cat bites result in hospitalization. We should look into them having controls too.

1 death in the country does not constitute a law that targets only a percentage of the perceived problem nor does it constitute the governmental costs associated with implementing and inforcing such a law. It's a waste of time and tax dollars and is only an issue because the media has made it an issue.

If you are worried about breeds, simply link a law as punishment to weather or not the owner was following proper bylaws such as having your dog leashed. If the owner broke a bylaw resulting in an injury, the owner should face the consequences, not an entire breed of animal. A simple solution requiring next to no tax dollars and which targets none of the breeds high percentage of well trained and happy animals.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. ;)

well i guess they will be banning poodles as they are more protective and have a natural tendency to go for the throat.  no living children after their throat gets torn out.

does the media report that the injured child was tugging the dogs tail, pulling its ears, or poking at it in ways that, if that child was doing these things to you, you would want to hit the child just to make it stop?  NO  the media does not report this as they can only report what they are told by the victims mother / parent who is usually hysterical at that point.

so far i have never seen an aggressive pit bull that was not provoked first.

we are all entitled to our own opinions.  unfortunately opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one. right or wrong, our opinions are valid to us and should be respected, even if you are wrong. 

Unprovoked? I'm not an animal psychologist myself - there's a reason 99% of the time for anything. I have to support Tokar on this point.

I've got slashed on the face by my relatives' cat when I was a kid out of my own stupidity - and I have yet to order the worldwide ban, if not, species-cide of cats. To this day, I still feel quite horrible for the cat having been expelled from my relatives' family for something that wasn't his fault.

I've got bitten by a Chinese Mongrel for petting him - initially, I thought it was an unprovoked reaction, but in retrospect shortly afterwards, I realized I had suffered from a nosebleed minutes ago and the dog was driven into frenzy for getting a whiff of my dried blood on my fingers.

Oh jeez, I'm gone for a couple days and it gets heated in here. Haha.

I actually plan on going to school to study animal behavior/psychology and I spend a lot of my spare time looking into it. I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again, dogs never randomly attack. It just doesn't happen. That's why I'm so set on people being educated instead of animals being banned. Not just for Pitbulls but other species out there too. If people knew what to look for, then the likeliness of getting attacked by a dog (or other animal) would be far less. It just appears to be random attacks to untrained eyes.

Is the dogs tail stiff and standing straight up or tucked between it's tail? Is it lifting up one paw? Do you see the whites of its eye? Is its mouth close? Mouth pulled back? Teeth showing? Stiff face, body? Little things like these can give away how a dog feels around you and one wrong move and you can be bit. Same thing for cats. If your making one angry their tails start to wag/flick about more frequently and their backs look like they are having occasional muscle spasms.

The other day my friend was going off about how she hated cats because mine scratched her. She completely did not see, because she didn't know what to look for, that my cat was getting pissed off by the way she was petting him. And I had to explain to her in detail how to be respectful to my cat and not piss it off. xD Now she knows. And I think everybody should know things like this about dogs.

If grown adults can't see the signs of a dangerous dog than what chance do children have?

Kids are attacked and killed by pit-bulls. More so than any other breed of dog.

Anyone arguing that pit-bulls aren't dangerous animals has a base misunderstanding of what some words mean.

Signed and shared. :) I've never supported the banning of specific dog breeds and never will.

: Ember  September 23, 2012, 11:14:14 -06:00
If grown adults can't see the signs of a dangerous dog than what chance do children have?

Kids are attacked and killed by pit-bulls. More so than any other breed of dog.

Kids are attacked and killed by dogs period more so than adults. It has nothing to do with pitbulls and everything to do with the kids not being able to interpret canine body language like adults and other dogs can. Making sure that kids and adults alike know not to run up to strange dogs, and teaching them how to watch for signs of annoyance with the dog, is far more effective than blanket-banning a breed and punishing the owners who raise their dogs right.

Anecdotally, I dogwalk and a puppy I walk with got attacked by a dog who was sitting by a car. It's owner had two young kids with it. The dog came up all happy to the puppy, sniffed him, realized he wasn't neutered, and bit him between the legs with no warning signs.
That dog was a Dalmatian--an incredibly high-energy breed that takes a lot of training and activity to keep calm. I had to physically kick him off the puppy to get him to let go, and the owner clearly didn't care one whit. Aggression has little to do with the breed, and a lot to do with training the dog. Part of the stigma around pits being aggressive comes from people being taught that they are, however false that might be, and then buying or adopting them for the sole purpose of having an untrained, aggressive guard dog. You need to make sure the owner's raising their dog correctly, not outright ban an entire breed of dog from the province. Owners are smarter than their dogs. They know their dog's mind and (usually) know to keep aggressive dogs away from children. It's not the dog's fault if it has a moronic owner.

: Ember  September 23, 2012, 11:14:14 -06:00
If grown adults can't see the signs of a dangerous dog than what chance do children have?

Kids are attacked and killed by pit-bulls. More so than any other breed of dog.

Anyone arguing that pit-bulls aren't dangerous animals has a base misunderstanding of what some words mean.

I have a good understanding of the English language. Pitt Bulls certainly CAN be dangerous animals. I have yet to meet one however that demonstrated more aggression towards humans than other breeds.

I used to foster problem Pitts for the humane society and was a proud dad to a Staffordshire Terrior (thought to be the 'worst of the bunch'). I believe years of one on one experience with the breed gives me an educated userstading of them. The thought of a knee-jerk reaction law banning a breed of dog due to fear mongering that would have prevented me from having one of the best and most gentle friends I've ever had is insulting and wrong.

Kids being attacked is sad. Theres no denying that. But almost every attack could have been avoided by
Either the owner or the parent. Lots more kids and adults are injured or killed by electricity. We don't ban electricity we educate people. We fine for misuse or negligence.

We need to stop deflecting blame onto other things. This idea that we can make the world
Ultra safe for everyone is unfortunate. Again, one death a year does not an emergency make. Nor does it require obscene amounts of tax dollars to implement and enforce new laws. You can argue that Pitts are 'the most dangerous' but If they're banned then a new breed tops the list. Gotta ban the new
Most dangerous then! And onwards we go until we can only have pet gerbils.

Quick question out of curiousity Ember - have you, or a close friend/family member/person of importance of yours, ever been assaulted by a cat or a dog in your life, breed notwithstanding?

---

If we do a perspective shift on the issue:

Pups and kittens have been kicked out or permanently injured and abused, due to the owners acting in a manner of an "unprovoked assault" towards the said canine/feline young.

Then what would you all think?

---
The world as ultra safe is illusive in short. I always believe that the presence, sentiment, and feeling of danger and conflict is important to society. Heaven and hell on earth is not so much a worry as to how one would subjectively negotiate upon the issue at hand.

On a slightly different note kids are super fast learners. :3 So teaching them wouldn't be as hard as you'd make it out to be.

Perhaps in elementary schools make a field trip day where you take the kids out to an educational conservation facility, wildlife rehabilitation center, and so on. There they get to see different animals and learn about them. Or have an experienced dog behaviorists/trainer bring dogs to their classes and teach them about dogs. Not only is it good for the children but they'd have a lot of fun doing it! I know I would have loved to have done that when I was younger.

: Tef  September 23, 2012, 04:46:14 -06:00
Quick question out of curiosity Ember - have you, or a close friend/family member/person of importance of yours, ever been assaulted by a cat or a dog in your life, breed notwithstanding?

Of course. :)

I should also mention that I grew up with a rottie as a pet so it's not that I'm afraid of large dogs :p

Why not change it's class to a weapon? If the dog attacks then put a heavier fine on the owner for having a dog that's bred to do damage. People don't buy pitbulls to deter pests or track game. They're bred to hurt and have a symbol of menace. If someone owns a pitbull then they should be prepared to take full consequences of its actions. There's not going to be a ban on pitbulls. It'll cost to much money to do it and no one is actually losing money to not have it happen.

there needs to be a country wide ban on people getting pets without proving they are capable of providing it they care they deserve, it's the only reason i don't have several reptiles at the very moment

: Draco_toxx  October 01, 2012, 06:56:59 -06:00
there needs to be a country wide ban on people getting pets without proving they are capable of providing it they care they deserve, it's the only reason i don't have several reptiles at the very moment

EXACTAMUNDO! XD This would solve all of the problems.

signed because pitbulls are adorbs and I've never met a large agressive dog of any breed that was healthy, the only large agressive dog I've ever seen was blind and a starving stray so I cant really blame her for chasing me around.

Do you people honestly think that if this bill was passed that people in BC wouldn't be able to get a pitbull? Come on. Who the fuck gives a shit here? There's a ban on a dangerous breed and then there's people that continue to own this breed. From the attack and aggression produced from this dog there's most likely going to be a push for this dog to be banned. It's not going to happen though. It creates to much revenue for any protection agency to cover. So what? someone has an aggressive pitbull, it makes the government a thousand dollars. These are infections upon the people. A toll on the people that don't even own a working dog. These are species that are bred to hurt, and hurt very well. I say tax the people that want to own a biological weapon and fine them when it gets out of control. As much as you people believe that these 'pets' are your friends, they will turn around and eat you when you decide to not give them kibble.

You sound like a positive fellow. :)

It's sounds very positive for the people that have power.

yesterday afternoon i was near the iga store in new west.  a pit bull was walking around with no leash.  it was so laid back and friendly i could have easily napped it, but i wouldn't.  i saw the 'guardian' (i do not like the term owner) and his elevator did not go to the penthouse, so i can see how docile the pet was, but people with lots of aggression built up should not have one

next ... i was up in lynn valley a few weeks ago and while everyone was watching the jumpers, i noticed a pit bull walking all around.  no leash or collar, but totally focused on one of the jumpers.  nobody seemed concerned and there were some younger kids around.  another dog came over and like dogs do, started to sniff.  the pit barely gave the shep x a glance.  no aggression there.  no snarl, no growl, no interest. nada, zip, zilch interest in the other dog or people.

two prime examples of how docile a pit can be.

: kohl  October 06, 2012, 04:07:57 -06:00
It's sounds very positive for the people that have power.

That statement of yours just tickled the Marxist sentiments in me.