[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?