[ZTWsquared]

Flofocus,Apr 4 2007, 06:27 PM Wrote:What Can I say?  You obviously dont like the breed or else you wouldnt be supporting the ban so strongly.  There is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind, same thing for me, you can type all day long, and I'll still think this bill was one of the biggest waste of tax payers money.  If you think its protecting you, you really are kidding yourself.

Don’t like the breed? – you’re way off base there man. What I don’t like, is that certain elements of our society don’t give a flyin’ fawk if they endanger other people by putting potentially lethal animals in situations where they can hurt or kill people – and I don’t give one rat’s ass what breed it is.

Flofocus,Apr 4 2007, 06:27 PM Wrote:And, yes, there is a problem.  If your dog mauls somebody, you fawked up along the lines somewhere.  Either you werent supervising them when they were off the leash, you let him get to close to something that he wasnt familiar with (kids, small animals), you left the front door open, whatever, in 99% of the cases I've read, it could have been prevented.  Like you said, dogs have a mind of thier own and its up to the owner to control that mind & body.

Excellent – we’re in total agreement here … there is a problem … dogs have a mind of their own … there is the potential for harm and death … so what’s your solution? Humans have been owning dogs since before recorded history but at one time the danger to people was more than offset by the advantages of having one – that’s no longer the case.

Flofocus,Apr 4 2007, 06:27 PM Wrote:I’m not arguing with you...a pitbull was meant to fight and kill other dogs, they CAN be dangerous, but so can any other dog, and a rotty will cause much more damage than a pitty would.

Great – we’re in agreement again about the potential for harm. But I disagree with your assertion that because a Rottweiler can cause more damage (according to you), Pitbulls should be ignored. And if that were in fact the case, I would imagine that Rottweillers would rule the dog pit – but AFAIK they don’t.

Flofocus,Apr 4 2007, 06:27 PM Wrote:Pitties are a popular dog, so were german sheppards in the 80's, and I remember the picture the media painted about those dogs then.  Same fawkin thing is happening right now with bullies.  Theyre popular, people like em, so they buy em not knowing what this dog requires training wise.  Yeah they probaly have one of the higher bite statistics, but Im sure theyre is more of them than any other breed.  Last time I checked the humane sociaty's website, most were bull breed mixes.

Gee … sounds like a problem to me. What’s your solution?

Flofocus,Apr 4 2007, 06:27 PM Wrote:And I do educate people on responsible dog ownership all the time.  Frig, even the members here ask for my input when it comes to muts.  I was watching the hockey game at my freinds house and he has a husky....my dogs gets along with other dogs but I still supervise them all the time.  I went to the washroom (had to take one of those wing s***s :P ) and when I got out my dog wasnt there as he usually sits and waits for me. His wife put the dogs outside and left them.  I got mad, I told her you shouldnt ever leave two dogs alone in the backyard....she thought I was kidding..."Hes a staff, you NEVER leave him alone with another dog"  She still thought I was joking because she knows how well they get along...I had to explain that maybe theres a toy out there that Toot (his/her husky) is really fond of...Mac may go for it and Toot wont like that...Mac probably wont start the fight but I can promiss you he'll finsih it.

And this story is supposed to make me think what … that even good dog owners can fawk up? That’s not a comforting thing to hear from someone who’s blaming the entire problem on irresponsible dog owners.

Flofocus,Apr 4 2007, 06:27 PM Wrote:Now lets say he attacked a kid in the backyard, 1) its the parents fault for letting there kid play in somebody elses yard with a dog, and 2) it was my fault for taking that s*** and not being out there to supervise.  A dog is a dog, there territorial, they'll do what a dog thinks is right.

Great – the one person not blamed in your scenario is the kid (thankfully) … however your last sentence says it all for me … it’s the dog’s instinct and dog’s will do what dog’s will do. My point exactly. But if the dog’s a terrier bred to go after rats and mice, then it’s not likely to attact something that’s the size of another dog … but a dog bred to attack and kill other dogs (or things the size of a dog) … well that’s a different story. So maybe one needs to be treated differently than the other.

Flofocus,Apr 4 2007, 06:27 PM Wrote:But please....explain to me how does this ban protects you and your family from dangerous dogs?[right][snapback]233275[/snapback][/right]

Okay … but it’s pretty simple and if you had an open mind about this it would be obvious even to you:

1) Awareness “A” … exposing the problem to the general public by way of the debate around the ban, means more people aware of the potential for danger and being able to recognize the special danger posed by certain breeds. Your backyard scenario is less likely to happen because even people who have no clue about dogs will likely have heard about the Pitbull ban and why and will be less likely to leave their kids alone with a dog.

2) Awareness “B” … exposing and emphasizing the problem, and general society’s view of the problem, to the good dog owners of the country. The less tolerant the good dog owners are of the bad ones, the less likely there are to be bad ones and the less likely breeders of certain breeds will be to sell their dogs to bad owners.

3) Awareness “C” … sending a message to the bad dog owners that their actions (or inaction) will be judged harshly by society and that the general population is becoming much less tolerant of a pet owner that doesn’t follow the rules and doesn’t remove the risk their pet might pose to others.

4) Less exposure to dangerous dogs “A” … over time the number of Pitbulls and Pitbull owners will decrease significantly; as opposed to the increase in numbers you noted above.

5) Less exposure to dangerous dogs “B” … those people who insist on owning a banned breed will be forced to keep them out of sight – they will be less likely to leave them in the yard where they can be seen and they will be much less likely to take them for a walk in the park or down the sidewalk.

6) Setting the precedent … once they get this law right and it stands the test of the Charter and the Supreme court, this ban will become the template for the banning of other breeds that you correctly identify as also being dangerous – a ban that will happen if dog owners don’t get their shi-ite together and adopt a zero tolerance themselves.

7) Forced creativity … perhaps if the good dog owners of the country truly understand that their privilege of dog ownership can be taken away, and will be if the problem isn’t solved, they might actually get involved in creating a real solution instead of wringing their hands and feeling sorry for themselves.