Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
drummindiver

Punish the Deed-Not the Breed?

Recommended Posts

Mixed breeds would be a problem, for sure, but once all the Pit Bull genes are gone, there would be no more mixed breeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What constitution?  The Charter.  It bothers me if that's the case.

https://criminaltriallawyers.ca/?q=know-your-rights

These are the people allowed to enter your home without a warrant.

 Seizure

Peace officers

12. For the purposes of this Act, the following persons are peace officers:

1. A police officer, including a police officer within the meaning of the Police Services Act, a special constable, a First Nations Constable and an auxiliary member of a police force.

2. A municipal law enforcement officer.

3. An inspector or agent under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

4. A public officer designated as a peace officer for the purposes of this Act. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

So basically,  anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Mixed breeds would be a problem, for sure, but once all the Pit Bull genes are gone, there would be no more mixed breeds.

Boxers nor Labs have pitbull gene because  there is no breed of pitbull. It is a generic term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

https://criminaltriallawyers.ca/?q=know-your-rights

These are the people allowed to enter your home without a warrant.

 Seizure

Peace officers

12. For the purposes of this Act, the following persons are peace officers:

1. A police officer, including a police officer within the meaning of the Police Services Act, a special constable, a First Nations Constable and an auxiliary member of a police force.

2. A municipal law enforcement officer.

3. An inspector or agent under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

4. A public officer designated as a peace officer for the purposes of this Act. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

So basically,  anyone.

Like I said, I'm okay with anyone doing anything to ensure public safety, as long as they are able to justify it after the fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

Boxers nor Labs have pitbull gene because  there is no breed of pitbull. It is a generic term.

I'll settle for any of the genes on the Wiki page.  Then keep an eye on the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The problem is, you can't do anything about the owners or the parents until after the fact. 

Clearly then the answer is to allow people like you to curtail everyone's freedoms, in all areas, where some people might do the wrong thing,  honestly, you're attitude is so insane that it's hard to imagine anyone in this allegedly free country could have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, poochy said:

Clearly then the answer is to allow people like you to curtail everyone's freedoms, in all areas, where some people might do the wrong thing,  honestly, you're attitude is so insane that it's hard to imagine anyone in this allegedly free country could have it.

What freedoms?

Edited by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Easy is a good reason to do something, if it prevents little kids and the elderly from being mauled.

 

Breed bans don't work, because dog bites don't actually go down.    

Quote

But how effective breed bans actually are across the board has been increasingly disputed as more numbers show that they do not prevent any type of attacks. In fact, bite reports tend to either stay the same or even trend upward after breed-specific legislation is enacted in a particular city or region. In Ireland, for example, the incidence of dog bites has risen by more than 50 percent since eleven breeds were banned from the country in 1998:

The only thing breed bans do is reduce the number of bites by that type of dog, but bites by other types of dogs goes up.   

What the numbers do show is that intact males are the most likely to bite, regardless of breed.

Breed bans are simplistic, feel good 'solutions' that please who don't want to think about it too much.   In the meantime, the real issues are ignored:  puppy mills, poor socialization, anthropomorphism, training methods that rely on pain/punishment, owners who are clueless about all the signals stressed and scared dogs give before they bite.  It's an extremely rare dog who 'bites out of the blue', most of them give clear signals if you know what to look for: yawning, lip-licking, looking away, tail held low, even if it's wagging, can all be signs of stress and fear and all come before a bite, even if it's in just the few moments before.    But most have a longer ramp-up time.

I only know this because I have a dog that is very fearful; I had to learn his signs and learn how to manage his environment so that he's never in a position where he thinks he has to protect himself with teeth.    Knowing your dog, understanding why dogs bite and being responsible is the only way to reduce dog bites.  Calgary understands this, and that is why they have had a successful reduction of dog bites.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dialamah said:

Breed bans don't work, because dog bites don't actually go down.    

The only thing breed bans do is reduce the number of bites by that type of dog, but bites by other types of dogs goes up.   

What the numbers do show is that intact males are the most likely to bite, regardless of breed.

Breed bans are simplistic, feel good 'solutions' that please who don't want to think about it too much.   In the meantime, the real issues are ignored:  puppy mills, poor socialization, anthropomorphism, training methods that rely on pain/punishment, owners who are clueless about all the signals stressed and scared dogs give before they bite.  It's an extremely rare dog who 'bites out of the blue', most of them give clear signals if you know what to look for: yawning, lip-licking, looking away, tail held low, even if it's wagging, can all be signs of stress and fear and all come before a bite, even if it's in just the few moments before.    But most have a longer ramp-up time.

I only know this because I have a dog that is very fearful; I had to learn his signs and learn how to manage his environment so that he's never in a position where he thinks he has to protect himself with teeth.    Knowing your dog, understanding why dogs bite and being responsible is the only way to reduce dog bites.  Calgary understands this, and that is why they have had a successful reduction of dog bites.

 

 

What about dog related deaths? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its almost like people believe a dog, of any breed, can't be dangerous.  The 170lb lab/shepherd/who knows that I got from a shelter as a puppy could have easily killed people if it was trained to do so.  Therefore, because you cant trust owners to do the right thing that mustn't be allowed.  Perhaps you can outline exactly what sort of dog people can own, what breeds, what size, all those things.  Pits of course, Rottweiler's, German shepherds, Dobermans, well they are all out, lets see, how about anything over 20 lbs?  Then again a 20 lbs dog could do awful damage to the face of a child crawling on the floor...you know what, no dogs, no one can have any dogs.  When does the euthanasia process begin?

Phew, now that we have that worked out maybe you can move on to the next thing you think we shouldn't be allowed to have or do simply because someone might misuse it.  It truly is hard to believe those opinions exist in the real world, then again, some people still think communism could have worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

What about dog related deaths? 

Dog bites, dog attacks, dog related deaths, all the same thing in terms of whether breed bans help.   The larger the dog, the more serious the injury is likely to be, but even lap dogs have been known to kill babies.   Deaths and serious injury to adults would go down if we banned all large dogs, I suppose.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rottweilers, those are the dogs my neighbour had in Surrey.  Now I remember.

Honestly, you are willing to see children die just so you can keep the dog of your choice.  Your attitude is so insane that it's hard to imagine anyone in any country could have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, poochy said:

Phew, now that we have that worked out maybe you can move on to the next thing you think we shouldn't be allowed to have or do simply because someone might misuse it. 

Drones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

In Canada since 1983 there have been 2 related to pbs. NotveBen close to being number 1

 

http://www.chicobandido.com/dbrf-canada/

I just googled this. 

http://www.banpitbulls.org/when/attacks-in-canada/

Edit>  And this.  I just looked 2015/2016, although I did see a study that contradicted what those years say.

University of Texas Study: 1966–1980

In contrast to the time period covered other studies, the researchers found no fatal attacks attributed to any pit bulls at all.

But then:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 1979–1998

The study found that Pit bulls and Rottweilers alone accounted for 67% of deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2016

Edited by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes a site listing all the pit bull attacks, ignoring any other breeds who may also have attacked in the same time period.   Demonizing pit bulls by focusing on them doing what all dogs do.  Does this remind you of an earlier conversation?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes a site listing all the pit bull attacks, ignoring any other breeds who may also have attacked in the same time period.   Demonizing pit bulls by focusing on them doing what all dogs do.  Does this remind you of an earlier conversation?   

Well, it could, given the prevalence of one breed to be particularly violent, but I certainly would never have considered that.

Edited by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ash74 said:

Cane courso is a much scarier breed yet is still legal to own.

Perfectly fine dogs. We've had one in the family for years and she's as sweet and good-natured a pet as I've ever seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eyeball said:

Perfectly fine dogs. We've had one in the family for years and she's as sweet and good-natured a pet as I've ever seen. 

Don't take it to San Francisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I just googled this. 

http://www.banpitbulls.org/when/attacks-in-canada/

Edit>  And this.  I just looked 2015/2016, although I did see a study that contradicted what those years say.

University of Texas Study: 1966–1980

In contrast to the time period covered other studies, the researchers found no fatal attacks attributed to any pit bulls at all.

But then:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 1979–1998

The study found that Pit bulls and Rottweilers alone accounted for 67% of deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2016

So,  if there have been 30 desths,  one other dog is the other 33%.

I looked for Canada Husky/sled dogs are the number one killer here with a bullet. Why no ban? Why no media frenzy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

So,  if there have been 30 desths,  one other dog is the other 33%.

I looked for Canada Husky/sled dogs are the number one killer here with a bullet. Why no ban? Why no media frenzy?

I don't know.  If they are as dangerous as Pit Bulls, I'd support a ban.  However, what I want to see is a breed extinction through sterilization and a ban on breeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Dog bites, dog attacks, dog related deaths, all the same thing in terms of whether breed bans help.   The larger the dog, the more serious the injury is likely to be, but even lap dogs have been known to kill babies.   Deaths and serious injury to adults would go down if we banned all large dogs, I suppose.   

 

Right?

People will always have dogs. We need to demand responsible  ownership to protect both us and the dogs we love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, it could, given the prevalence of one breed to be particularly violent, but I certainly would never have considered that.

That would be Labs, right?

Edited by dialamah
Fix the link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...