[ZTWsquared]

(05-05-2010, 10:29 PM)Flofocus Wrote: I dont need to come up with anything Ken. People need to shake their heads if they think this law is going to do anything positive at all. I'm not going to change fawk-awl. Retarded politicians who put dumb ass laws can certainly change things, but not me.

There will always be pitbulls in Ontario - at least in my house there will be. You can keep voting for whomever you'd like, but I'm going to keep supporting the responsible pitbull owners owners and this breed.

So your answer is to become a scofflaw? Isn't this the same as covering your ears and yelling LA LA LA LA to make it go away? That doesn't cut it Nate, but I suspect that this is your only option because you really don't have a solution to the very real concerns of the people who support this legislation.

Ignore the legislation and the people who support it all you want ... but the sentiment behind making our communities safer from dogs that can kill or maim is real and it's not going away just because you think it's dumb ass.

As for doing something positive ... in Manitoba where pit bulls were banned in 1990, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of pit bull attacks - a fact even pit bull advocates don't bother arguing.

Is breed specific legislation the total answer to the problem of dog attacks? Obviously not. But it does address specific concerns about the outcomes of attacks by specific breeds - which is why the article in the OP missed the point.

My vote is not for "who", but for "what" - communities where people are safe from dogs that can kill or maim; and to whatever degree this legislation will help, then so be it. If there's something better, then speak up and I'll listen - but in the meantime I'll put my support behind some sort of action ... I will not support the status quo or inaction.

But in any event I can guarantee you that the next election will not be won or lost on this issue. You may be emotional about it and think it's a big deal, but you are in the minority.

And finally ... just as an aside ... I find it really humourous that the articles headline reads "Pit Bull ban hasn't cut dog bites" ... and then you read this quote in the same article:

"Despite the law, the Humane Society found the number of dog bites dropped slightly to between 5,350 and 5,500 in the last four years."

Whhhhaaaaatttttt? The population of Ontario rose by hundreds of thousands but the number dog bites actually did drop ... fawkers ... if you want to destroy your credibility just keep publishing dirvel like that.