[darkpuppet]

guess this probably doesn't come as much surprise to people here, but a report now confirms it

Quote:Pit bull ban not reducing dog bites in Ont.: study

28/04/2010 11:28:07 AM

ctvtoronto.ca
Ontario's controversial pit bull ban has not resulted in a decrease in the number of dog bites in the province, according to a new study by the Toronto Humane Society.

The pit bull ban, passed as an amendment to the Ontario Dog Owners Liability Act in 2005, banned the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls.

The ban was introduced as a public safety tool after a series of pit bull attacks in the province.

In announcing the plan to ban the breed in 2004, then attorney general Michael Bryant said pit bulls were "inherently dangerous animals" and "ticking time bombs."

But a statistical survey completed by the THS suggests that the ban on the breed has not reduced the number of dog bites in the province, and that the number of dog bites in the province has not significantly decreased since the ban came into effect.

"Countless" pit bulls and Staffordshire terriers have been euthanized because of the ban, the humane society said.

And a spokesperson for the humane society said targeting specific dog breeds is not the way to reduce dog attacks.

"If we want to reduce the number of dog bites, we have to address the root cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals," Ian McConachie said in a press release. "It is clear from these figures that the BSL aspects of the Dog Owners Liability Act has not worked to decrease the incidents of dog bites."

According to the humane society's study, there were 5,428 reported dog bites in 2005, the year the ban came into effect. Since then, the number of dog bites has remained fairly constant, with 5,360 in 2006, 5,492 in 2007, 5,463 in 2008 and 5,345 in 2009.


......

[Flofocus]

darkpuppet,Apr 28 2010, 11:57 AM Wrote:guess this probably doesn't come as much surprise to people here

Not surprised at all.

2 of my neighboors got rid of their dogs at 6 months of age.

Both bit their young children.

1 neighboor always had the dog outside. Never took it for walks. Dog sat outside and chewed on the kids swing set. i felt so sad for that dog. Why get a pet if your just going to keep it outside. He got rid of it after it bit his kid...funny because once my son was born, he was lecturing me how my dog would get jealous and I would have to choose between the 2. :rolleyes:

Second neighboor got rid of his after it bit his daughter. He was a good owner though. Brought the dog for walks every night, came over and we let dogs play in the back yard. It was a good dog, but he couldnt train his daughter to behave properly around the dog. Alwyas pulling its tail, making growling noises at it face to face while it was chewing its ball, stupid kid things really...His son was pissed at his sister for not lsitening to dad because now the dog had to pay the price. I completely understand his situation, and he still stops me when walking my dog to tell me how much he misses the dog. "In a few years when she's older and understands what an animal is"

BTW, they were a golden retreiver, the other was a yellow lab.

They should ban those breeds too. :P

[Drivesthebeast]

I agree that targeting speciffic breeds is stupid. I've done lots of research on different dog breeds, and I've come to find that some, like Rotties, Dobermans, Boxers, German Shepherds, Mastiffs, even Pitbulls, get a VERY bad rep. In fact, I've found more than one source of information that suggested that Labs and Golden Retreivers are actually more dangerous than any of those breeds. Rotties and other breeds can be territorial or assertive, but that's ONLY if they are trained or nutured that way from birth.

I walk my dog Nikita, who is about a 50-55 lb female Rottweiler/Border Collie mix, (looks mostly Rottie, but has longer wavy hair around her scruff and stomach) off her leash all the time (early morning or late at night, in the park). If there are other dogs around (usually smaller dogs) or people that have childern or just behave in an apprehensive manner, I'll put her leash on, and let them see how calm she is. The only time I've seen her be aggressive (and this was more of defence actually) was when other dogs or people posed a threat to me, and only if she could see I felt threatened (when a dog/dogs would run straight at me, and either lunge or jump up at me). If this were the case, she would puff herself up and talk deep and loudly at the other dog(s) and make short, fast lunges against her leash towards them. It's funny, but in terms of cats, big dogs, and other animals, she could care less about them. It seems like small dogs wanna push her buttons the most (isn't that almost always the case? lol!).

They are going to have to start being tougher on owners, and I know they are already starting to do so with making the purchase or adoption of pets harder, and they have to be screened and have their house and property inspected too sometimes (depending on the size/breed of dog or other animals). I love that TV show "At the end of my leash", as the host usually humiliates and trains the people corrective behavior, moreso than the dogs. I think Ceasar Milian does this well sometimes too.

Anyways, good info guys, and it's great that there are dog owners out there that know what they are doing.

L8tz!

[darkpuppet]

The thing with Dobermans, Boxers, and a few of the usual 'tough' breeds, is that they've bred out a lot of the aggressive traits the dogs used to be known for.

The one exception was the pitbull -- a breed that hasn't had all of the aggressive traits bred out.

granted, I think there are more dangerous dogs -- Chows are definitely up there for looking like pansies, but being able to rip your arm off unexpectedly.

[ZTWsquared]

darkpuppet,Apr 28 2010, 11:57 AM Wrote:guess this probably doesn't come as much surprise to people here, but a report now confirms it

Quote:Pit bull ban not reducing dog bites in Ont.: study

28/04/2010 11:28:07 AM

ctvtoronto.ca
Ontario's controversial pit bull ban has not resulted in a decrease in the number of dog bites in the province, according to a new study by the Toronto Humane Society.

The pit bull ban, passed as an amendment to the Ontario Dog Owners Liability Act in 2005, banned the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls.

The ban was introduced as a public safety tool after a series of pit bull attacks in the province.

In announcing the plan to ban the breed in 2004, then attorney general Michael Bryant said pit bulls were "inherently dangerous animals" and "ticking time bombs."

But a statistical survey completed by the THS suggests that the ban on the breed has not reduced the number of dog bites in the province, and that the number of dog bites in the province has not significantly decreased since the ban came into effect.

"Countless" pit bulls and Staffordshire terriers have been euthanized because of the ban, the humane society said.

And a spokesperson for the humane society said targeting specific dog breeds is not the way to reduce dog attacks.

"If we want to reduce the number of dog bites, we have to address the root cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals," Ian McConachie said in a press release. "It is clear from these figures that the BSL aspects of the Dog Owners Liability Act has not worked to decrease the incidents of dog bites."

According to the humane society's study, there were 5,428 reported dog bites in 2005, the year the ban came into effect. Since then, the number of dog bites has remained fairly constant, with 5,360 in 2006, 5,492 in 2007, 5,463 in 2008 and 5,345 in 2009.


......

[right][snapback]306049[/snapback][/right]

Apples and oranges ... the pit bull ban wasn't enacted to reduce the number of dog bites ... it was enacted to reduce the number of human deaths due to pit bull maulings.

It's been statistically proven that a pit bull, when it does bite, has a much greater capacity to kill than virtually any other breed ... and not necessarily because of temperament, but because of its physical abilities and its fighting nature.

According to the Clifton study, of the 345 human deaths attributed to known dog breeds between 1982 and 2009 in North America ... 46% were attributed to pit bull terriers ... the next closest was the rottweiler at 20%.

That's a huge disparity between two breeds some may see as equally capable to kill or maim a human ... and compared to all other breeds it's off the charts.

Dog bites are a controllable public health issue... and if dog owners are incapable of reducing or eliminating them, then it is left to the legislators to do so.

I for one am tired of politely asking dog owners to put their dog on a leash in the park where my kids are playing, only to be cursed, spat at and worse ... usually right next to the "dogs must be on a leash" sign.

And although I know that this is tangential to the topic at hand, it is reason for me to get more aggressive in any way I can to put a muzzle on dog owners - and yes, I am now lumping the good owners in with the bad because I so rarely see a good dog owner.

If the public in general is becoming less and less tolerant of dogs in the neighbourhood, dog owners in general having no one but themselves to blame.

The one thing I can guarantee which pit bull supporters cannot deny ... is that if there are no pit bulls in ontario, there will be no human deaths attributed to pit bulls in ontario. History has proven that pit bull owners cannot make the counter claim.

[Scorcher000]

LOL tottally agree, it's the owners fault for everything. Train the dam dogs right.

My lil s***-zu wants to take on the world, but she still knows what is bad and good. :lol:

[NefCanuck]

Thing is ZTW, this legislation doesn't solve the real problem, that problem being the irresponsible dog owners. It only targets a breed whose owners are sometimes at fault for not being able to exercise proper care and control of their animals.

This legislation is the equivalent of banning all cars with over 100hp because statistically speaking most incidents involve cars with high horsepower figures, instead of properly nailing the incompetent drivers when they screw up

That's reactionary government, not good government IMO.

Of course we the idiots we have in office now, a few more yahoos cause accidents in their high powered cars and just watch them do something like I'm suggesting <_<

NefCanuck

[Focus man. Focus.]

We will all know who to blame now, won't we Daniel. LOL

Now from the dog owners perspective. A dogs action and or reaction is a true reflection of it owner and how they(the animal) were raised. Throughout my life I have always had dogs around me. Most have been rescued. I have had 7 dogs and only one was a mix. All told we have had in our family: 3 Golden Retrievers, 2 Rottweilers, 1 Olde English, and 1 mix breed. Out of all of them, the most loyal and loving were the Rottweilers. They were the biggest too. The one we have currently is around 150lbs and the one we most recently lost was close to 200lbs. Both of them are/were very docile and carefull dogs.

Diesel is very gentle around the baby and my 8 year old. Buster our Olde English he will take any toddler abuse sent his way. Not abuse like he is being beaten, but all the terror a 16 month old can dish out. His rolls are pulled, he is climbed on, and run into with any number of toddler toys. He barely raises an eye to all of this. The only punishment we recieve in return are his VERY foul gas bombs.

But I will agree, the action of the dog are a direct reflection of their upbringing. Ban all the breeds you want, but if a dog isn't trained or brought up properly it will come out to bite the owner in the ass in the end. No Pun Intended.

[ZTWsquared]

NefCanuck,Apr 28 2010, 08:19 PM Wrote:Thing is ZTW, this legislation doesn't solve the real problem, that problem being the irresponsible dog owners.  It only targets a breed whose owners are sometimes at fault for not being able to exercise proper care and control of their animals.

This legislation is the equivalent of banning all cars with over 100hp because statistically speaking most incidents involve cars with high horsepower figures, instead of properly nailing the incompetent drivers when they screw up

That's reactionary government, not good government IMO.

Of course we the idiots we have in office now, a few more yahoos cause accidents in their high powered cars and just watch them do something like I'm suggesting <_<

NefCanuck
[right][snapback]306087[/snapback][/right]

I know it doesn't solve the problem of irresponsible dog owners ... which is exactly the point.

If an irresponsible dog owner has a small dog that is physically incapable of killing or maiming a human (like my mother's nasty pomeranian) then the dimension of the problem is one thing ... the same irresponsible with a different breed - one that is capable of killing or maiming, well then the problem is different because of the potential for a tragic outcome to their irresponsibility.

And I'm sorry Daniel but I don't think your analogy to a high-power car works ... on its own the car is incapable of any kind of action - it's potential to do harm is solely on the basis of the actions of the driver; not so in the case of a dog which in addition to whatever input the owner has, also has its own sentient will.

[Flofocus]

ZTWsquared,Apr 28 2010, 05:59 PM Wrote:

darkpuppet,Apr 28 2010, 11:57 AM Wrote:guess this probably doesn't come as much surprise to people here, but a report now confirms it

Quote:Pit bull ban not reducing dog bites in Ont.: study

28/04/2010 11:28:07 AM

ctvtoronto.ca
Ontario's controversial pit bull ban has not resulted in a decrease in the number of dog bites in the province, according to a new study by the Toronto Humane Society.

The pit bull ban, passed as an amendment to the Ontario Dog Owners Liability Act in 2005, banned the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls.

The ban was introduced as a public safety tool after a series of pit bull attacks in the province.

In announcing the plan to ban the breed in 2004, then attorney general Michael Bryant said pit bulls were "inherently dangerous animals" and "ticking time bombs."

But a statistical survey completed by the THS suggests that the ban on the breed has not reduced the number of dog bites in the province, and that the number of dog bites in the province has not significantly decreased since the ban came into effect.

"Countless" pit bulls and Staffordshire terriers have been euthanized because of the ban, the humane society said.

And a spokesperson for the humane society said targeting specific dog breeds is not the way to reduce dog attacks.

"If we want to reduce the number of dog bites, we have to address the root cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals," Ian McConachie said in a press release. "It is clear from these figures that the BSL aspects of the Dog Owners Liability Act has not worked to decrease the incidents of dog bites."

According to the humane society's study, there were 5,428 reported dog bites in 2005, the year the ban came into effect. Since then, the number of dog bites has remained fairly constant, with 5,360 in 2006, 5,492 in 2007, 5,463 in 2008 and 5,345 in 2009.


......

[right][snapback]306049[/snapback][/right]

Apples and oranges ... the pit bull ban wasn't enacted to reduce the number of dog bites ... it was enacted to reduce the number of human deaths due to pit bull maulings.

Not quite. The law was introduced for that reason and also to keep dangerous dogs (regaurdless of breed) off the streets, and to hopefully reduce dog bites.

Didnt work. Will not work. Breed banning wont do anything. Its a band aid solution to bigger problem, easy as that.

[NefCanuck]

ZTWsquared,Apr 28 2010, 10:05 PM Wrote:If an irresponsible dog owner has a small dog that is physically incapable of killing or maiming a human (like my mother's nasty pomeranian) then the dimension of the problem is one thing ... the same irresponsible with a different breed - one that is capable of killing or maiming, well then the problem is different because of the potential for a tragic outcome to their irresponsibility.

And I'm sorry Daniel but I don't think your analogy to a high-power car works ... on its own the car is incapable of any kind of action - it's potential to do harm is solely on the basis of the actions of the driver; not so in the case of a dog which in addition to whatever input the owner has, also has its own sentient will.
[right][snapback]306102[/snapback][/right]

Ah, but then by that line of thought why stop at pit bulls? There are many breeds with the capacity to maim and / or kill that aren't in any way sanctioned just because they are that breed as pitbulls and pitbull mixes are.

German Sheppards, Doberman Pinschers, English Bulldogs just to name a few off the top of my head that are know to be capable of harm at the drop of a hat.

As to your comments about my second point... I could make a Toyota joke but I'll be nice :P

NefCanuck

[Flofocus]

The US and Canadian jail systems are full off black people, should we....

Nevermind! :P

[Flofocus]

NefCanuck,Apr 29 2010, 11:28 AM Wrote:German Sheppards, Doberman Pinschers, English Bulldogs just to name a few off the top of my head that are know to be capable of harm at the drop of a hat.
[right][snapback]306114[/snapback][/right]

The so called experts said they had a 'lot' of proof that showed the bully breeds were unpredictable animals that 'go off' more than any other breed.

I would like to see this proof.

Any animal is unpredictable. Its an animal, you cant read its mind. :rolleyes:

[darkpuppet]

ZTWsquared,Apr 28 2010, 11:05 PM Wrote:And I'm sorry Daniel but I don't think your analogy to a high-power car works ... on its own the car is incapable of any kind of action - it's potential to do harm is solely on the basis of the actions of the driver; not so in the case of a dog which in addition to whatever input the owner has, also has its own sentient will.
[right][snapback]306102[/snapback][/right]

Maybe a better analogy is the fact that while women (statistically) get into more car accidents, men get into more fatal accidents.

So we should ban all men from driving? (eep!) :ph34r:

Tho, you do make a lot of good points Ken. Seems the media may have missed the bigger story with the ban. -- is it me, or does media reporting seem to be biased to what'll make the biggest stink?

[ZTWsquared]

Flofocus,Apr 29 2010, 10:29 AM Wrote:

ZTWsquared,Apr 28 2010, 05:59 PM Wrote:

darkpuppet,Apr 28 2010, 11:57 AM Wrote:guess this probably doesn't come as much surprise to people here, but a report now confirms it

Quote:Pit bull ban not reducing dog bites in Ont.: study

28/04/2010 11:28:07 AM

ctvtoronto.ca
Ontario's controversial pit bull ban has not resulted in a decrease in the number of dog bites in the province, according to a new study by the Toronto Humane Society.

The pit bull ban, passed as an amendment to the Ontario Dog Owners Liability Act in 2005, banned the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls.

The ban was introduced as a public safety tool after a series of pit bull attacks in the province.

In announcing the plan to ban the breed in 2004, then attorney general Michael Bryant said pit bulls were "inherently dangerous animals" and "ticking time bombs."

But a statistical survey completed by the THS suggests that the ban on the breed has not reduced the number of dog bites in the province, and that the number of dog bites in the province has not significantly decreased since the ban came into effect.

"Countless" pit bulls and Staffordshire terriers have been euthanized because of the ban, the humane society said.

And a spokesperson for the humane society said targeting specific dog breeds is not the way to reduce dog attacks.

"If we want to reduce the number of dog bites, we have to address the root cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals," Ian McConachie said in a press release. "It is clear from these figures that the BSL aspects of the Dog Owners Liability Act has not worked to decrease the incidents of dog bites."

According to the humane society's study, there were 5,428 reported dog bites in 2005, the year the ban came into effect. Since then, the number of dog bites has remained fairly constant, with 5,360 in 2006, 5,492 in 2007, 5,463 in 2008 and 5,345 in 2009.


......

[right][snapback]306049[/snapback][/right]

Apples and oranges ... the pit bull ban wasn't enacted to reduce the number of dog bites ... it was enacted to reduce the number of human deaths due to pit bull maulings.

Not quite. The law was introduced for that reason and also to keep dangerous dogs (regaurdless of breed) off the streets, and to hopefully reduce dog bites.

Didnt work. Will not work. Breed banning wont do anything. Its a band aid solution to bigger problem, easy as that.
[right][snapback]306110[/snapback][/right]

Sorry Nate - but I don't see where you're coming from. The only point I took from this legislation was to eliminate injury from pit bulls - that's why the legislation was breed specific; I'm not sure how you're expanding the net to include "all" breeds of dangerous dogs.

Also: I don't remember anything about reducing dog bites (that would be a function of the number of dogs, wouldn't it?) ... because we could easily assume that in the absence of a pit bull an owner might have another breed ... moreover, it wouldn't surprise me at all to know that most dog bites come from the smaller breeds - both as a function of sheer numbers and as a function of their tendencies - but again, that IMO is absolutely irrelevant to the point of a pit bull ban.

The only way I could accept your statement that the legislation did not work, is for you to show that the number of injuries due to pit bull attacks has not been reduced in ontario.

Can you?

[NefCanuck]

darkpuppet,Apr 29 2010, 02:41 PM Wrote:Tho, you do make a lot of good points Ken.  Seems the media may have missed the bigger story with the ban.  -- is it me, or does media reporting seem to be biased to what'll make the biggest stink?
[right][snapback]306127[/snapback][/right]

In my dealings with the media, both as a private citizen and in my line of work I've come to realize that the saying "If it bleeds, it leads" is too true.

Media is always looking for that quick hit to grab eyeballs because society at large no longer has the appetite for "sober second thought" that more in depth reporting has a chance to provide.

NefCanuck

[OAC_Sparky]

darkpuppet,Apr 29 2010, 03:41 PM Wrote:Maybe a better analogy is the fact that while women (statistically) get into more car accidents, men get into more fatal accidents.

So we should ban all men from driving?  (eep!)   :ph34r: [right][snapback]306127[/snapback][/right]

Well, that would be extreme, but the law does allow men to be treated different than women, because a man's car insurance is generally higher than a woman's all other things being equal. (ie. That the law condones this is really a form of legal sex discrimination. But could you imagine the lawsuits if they kept accident stats based on race and (for example) charged blacks or Asians more?!!) BUT, generally speaking, this does keep more dangerous, high powered sports cars out of the hands of less experienced, young males that tend to drive more aggressively.

Being a dog owner myself (I have a rescued racing greyhound) I personally don't agree with a breed-specific ban, but I do agree that dog owners should perhaps be forced to carry liability insurance. And in that way you can charge rates based on breed.

I mean, even a fairly peaceful breed like a greyhound can cause damage -- a greyhound is still a large hunting dog (70-80lbs) with a high prey drive (that varies from dog to dog) and is the fastest runner that can chase prey at 70kmh. One of the greys we fostered for a bit attacked the wife's gf's Bijon Frise unexpectedly (note to small dogs -- keep your nose outta bigger dog's asses) and caused a $500 vet bill that we had to pay. But I have only seen a couple reports of a human mauling by a greyhound and no deaths -- which is surprising considering the number of abused (mentally and physically) greyhounds that are out there (nature of the sport).

If you charge by breed based statistically on the damage it will cause (based on historic data), perhaps you can work to keep the dangerous ones out of the irresponsible wannabe redneck toughguys that can't rub two nickels together that don't train the dog properly. But to an established responsible couple it shouldn't be a dealbreaker.

[Mystake]

in our family we have a toy poodle.

I'd hate to have to pay for liability insurance for a dog that weighs 14 lbs.


it's all on the owners IMO.

[Flofocus]

(04-30-2010, 08:58 AM)ZTWsquared Wrote: Sorry Nate - but I don't see where you're coming from. The only point I took from this legislation was to eliminate injury from pit bulls - that's why the legislation was breed specific; I'm not sure how you're expanding the net to include "all" breeds of dangerous dogs.

Also: I don't remember anything about reducing dog bites (that would be a function of the number of dogs, wouldn't it?) ... because we could easily assume that in the absence of a pit bull an owner might have another breed ... moreover, it wouldn't surprise me at all to know that most dog bites come from the smaller breeds - both as a function of sheer numbers and as a function of their tendencies - but again, that IMO is absolutely irrelevant to the point of a pit bull ban.

The only way I could accept your statement that the legislation did not work, is for you to show that the number of injuries due to pit bull attacks has not been reduced in ontario.

Can you?

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca...asp#TOC_01

Quote:The legislation bans pit bulls in Ontario, places restrictions on existing pit bulls, and toughens the penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public.

Quote:The recent amendments to DOLA also contain tough new penalties for the owners of all potentially dangerous dogs, regardless of breed or type.

Under the transition section...

Quote:This transition period allowed all dog owners to familiarize themselves with the existing and new requirements of DOLA that apply to ALL dogs.

I stand by what I said; this bill was introduced to ban pitbulls, reduce dangerous dogs from attacking people, and toughen up the existing laws to reduce the dog bites, reguardless of breed.

The pitbull ban does not reduce dog bites in Ontario.

[ZTWsquared]

(05-04-2010, 04:14 AM)Flofocus Wrote:

(04-30-2010, 08:58 AM)ZTWsquared Wrote: Sorry Nate - but I don't see where you're coming from. The only point I took from this legislation was to eliminate injury from pit bulls - that's why the legislation was breed specific; I'm not sure how you're expanding the net to include "all" breeds of dangerous dogs.

Also: I don't remember anything about reducing dog bites (that would be a function of the number of dogs, wouldn't it?) ... because we could easily assume that in the absence of a pit bull an owner might have another breed ... moreover, it wouldn't surprise me at all to know that most dog bites come from the smaller breeds - both as a function of sheer numbers and as a function of their tendencies - but again, that IMO is absolutely irrelevant to the point of a pit bull ban.

The only way I could accept your statement that the legislation did not work, is for you to show that the number of injuries due to pit bull attacks has not been reduced in ontario.

Can you?

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca...asp#TOC_01

Quote:The legislation bans pit bulls in Ontario, places restrictions on existing pit bulls, and toughens the penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public.

Quote:The recent amendments to DOLA also contain tough new penalties for the owners of all potentially dangerous dogs, regardless of breed or type.

Under the transition section...

Quote:This transition period allowed all dog owners to familiarize themselves with the existing and new requirements of DOLA that apply to ALL dogs.

I stand by what I said; this bill was introduced to ban pitbulls, reduce dangerous dogs from attacking people, and toughen up the existing laws to reduce the dog bites, reguardless of breed.

The pitbull ban does not reduce dog bites in Ontario.

Nate ... there is only the vaguest reference to the total number of dogbites, but the part you're glossing over is the part that specifically refers to "dangerous breeds" and dogs that "poses a danger" ... I still deny that the intention was to reduce the number of dog bites from non-dangerous dogs, but in fact is focused on pit bulls specifically (obviously) and other similar breeds that pose a similar danger.

I maintain that to suggest that the pit bull ban was instituted to reduce the number of bites by non-dangerous dogs, and therefore is not working because overall bites are not down, is misleading and disengenous.

Show me where the number of bites by pit bull or similarly dangerous breed is unchanged or up ... then we'll have a proper discussion about the effectiveness of the legislation.