[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.