[CanadaSVT]

Good points by the both of you. Here are articles covering the court case of my co-worker. What they fail to mention is the Pitty owner has a nice house in a good family communtiy with a 250ft yard. The civil suit will probably take that all away from him. I really do feel for the guy, but more for the victim. BTW we have a 70lb Lab and if she ever showed any bad behaviour toward my family or any human, she's gone for good.

Pit bull attack shattered her world

No peace of mind for dog's victim

P.S. How do ya all like this typical early April weather? :fluffy:

[ZTWsquared]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if there wasn't a problem with people getting hurt and killed by dogs ... a problem you have already acknowledged ... so stop with the "friendly" and "well behaved" anecdotes - they mean nothing in the larger context and will only have relevance when dog attacks are eliminated.

So what's your solution? Stop pit fighting around the world? Give me a break. Control breeding and breeders - yeah like that's remotely possible. The solution to solving the "supply" problem is to eliminate the demand and that's what a ban is all about.

A "smoke screen" ... I "don't understand?" What a crock! You've echoed everything I've said about dog ownership and the nature of dogs and I've owned at least 5 dogs in my life - I'm not a dog hater, I am a respecter of dogs.

What you haven't acknowledged and don't seem to understand is that one dog attack is one too many. And yet for some reason you seem perfectly willing to accept that innocent people are mauled and killed with stupid regularity ... stupid because they are entirely preventable.

IMO dog ownership is not so important or necessary to our society that we should tolerate some level of acceptable "collateral" damage. You on the other hand believe that the privilege of a few should outweight the safety of others. That's rather a narrow and selfish viewpoint IMO.

Change the perception? The only thing that will change the perception is when the reality is that people are no longer at risk of dog attacks ... and nothing you've proposed comes remotely close to making that happen.

In terms of the media you seem to be suggesting that dog attacks are no longer newsworthy and are therefore not being reported ... what's your proof. There was a recent report of an elderly lady being attacked and I've seen other reports of a dog on dog attack even. I have no doubt that dog attacks are consistently reported when they are known and that the only reason we don't hear about pit bull attacks is because there's nothing to report - which is a good thing - and that could very well be because of more muzzling.

The dog owners and the dog fanciers and the breeders of this country and the whole dog industry has had decades to solve this problem on their own ... a problem that goes unacknowledged by them for the most part ... but instead the problem has escalated ... and so fine, the rest of us will deal with it to our satisfaction and by the ways and means we feel is appropriate.

My advice to you and anyone else who thinks they are being disadvantaged by this ban and any others to come, is this: get your industry's fawkin act together and do something positive, responsible and EFFECTIVE to solve the problem - because if you don't others will and we're not waiting. In other words stop the dog attacks entirely (one is too many) and then the ownership of dangerous dogs will be tolerated.

And in terms of my personal belief ... yeah, I think the ban will eventually reduce dog attacks. But in any event I'd rather err on the side of caution ... I'll put the potential to save injury or death over your privilege of owning a specific breed any day of the week.

IMO the onus is on the dog owner and the dog industry now to prove that dangerous dogs have a legitimate place in our society, and if they can't ... then they have to go.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 09:44 AM Wrote:

ZTWsquared,Apr 4 2007, 08:37 PM Wrote:If this ban saves just one person from a mauling or worse ... then it will have served its purpose and I will feel vindicated for my support of it. My personal believe is that over time it will significantly reduce the risk that we face from bad dog owners and dangerous dogs.
[right][snapback]233293[/snapback][/right]

Thats your personal beleif, great.

Def not mine. I don't see pitbulls being mussled by thier owners, I don't see puppies being put down that are being born today, Bylaw officers arent even enforcing it. I'll be buying another pup soon, wanna guess the breed? :D

How come the media isn't reporting pitbull attacks? Is it because all owners are mussling them? :lol: No because the hype has finally died down.

This ban is a smoke screen for people like you. People that are scared of something they don't understand, so when something like this comes up, a band-aid solution, your all for it. Good for you.

Instead of wasting money on something so retarded why doesnt the fag look into the real s***? I mean if your gonna spend money, do it right, but fawk Bryan MCFag do something right? FAWK NO.

1) Control Breeding and breeders with better laws. We bred dog agreesion in em, let's breed it out of them. Stop the puppy mills. Stop the breeders than churn these guys out @ $1200 a pop or more. All for the money....not for the love of a dogs. This will help a lot also on controlling the overpopulation of bully breeds, fawk, any overpopulation in our local humane societies.

2) Then we need to stop pitfighting....all across the world. It's really distrubing what this breed has to do to get some of their masters love. Runts of litters are tossed in fights between adults...they last about 10 secons, torn limb for limb. When a pit is losing and retreating and ignoring the masters commands to keep fighting, the master will not stop the fight, they will ususally let it go until the other dog has killed it, thats even if the competitor can move after a fight. They lose so much blood and have so much damage done to them that if they survive, they get fixed up by a vet, given some time off, in a small ass cage BTW, to heal, then sent to the pits again. Stongest are bred as a 'good dog'. I'm sure you can search yourself for some more, personally this makes me sick to my stomach so Im gonna stop...

3) Then we need to change our current licensing laws. Fawk this banning breed bulls*** :angry: :angry: . We have licenses for cars, guns, hunting, fishing, we need em for dogs. Obedience classes should be mandatory. When your even thinking about getting a dog, you should be in some sort of info seminar on teh available breeds and what the breed was about.

4)Change the perception. Get them out of DMX's music videos. Get the media to start reporting the good actions...ones that save lives, ones that sniff out cancer, ones that do search and rescue...

lol, I wish I could explain myself as well as you because I have so much to say about what you posted about the ban and its 'awarness' points. Amawrness to the general society? What theyre aware of is wrong. These dogs are great, loving and trusting dogs in the right hands. Look at AD's post about bumping into them at his obedience classes. Best behaved? Yeah, fawkin weird for a vicious dog heh? Many of my freinds say the same about my dogs. Both the Husky and pitbull. The scenarios above are just examples of what could happen. I know that if a kid was in the backyard my dogs wouldnt sattack, he was socialised properly but I still go out with them everyday, I'd hate for them to hurt the nieghboors cat, or get out somehow....you know. I love them, and always watch them. They've had spats though, favorite toy gets between them and dogs become dogs, the fighting is not encrouraged and they are scolded for doing it.

The things I listed above will educate people properly, not how this Ban is 'making people aware' (what a crock of s***) and at the same time set some laws for breeders to follow so we don't end up with a huge amount of strays in the humane society.

Oh and...Rotties have a higher jaw pressure per square inch than pitties. Yes they would cause more damage to human bones than a pitbull would. Dog Fighting is a completely different sick game.;)

Oh and ZTW, if your family is scared of this dog, why not get one? Help me prove to the population that these dogs are great...You heard the name "Nanny dog", these guys are great around kids, protective to ;). You'd also be helping by getting some of these guys a better home rather than a small ass cage at the humane society. The Best passive alarm system Ive ever had to. I go away to toronto or montreal for a couple of weeks and my wife feels COMPLETELY SAFE with him around her.

The media has done such a great job at paiting these guys to be ferocious killers that I can't help but laugh at anybody that beleives it.

If you have the national geo channel, I recommend you watch the dog whisperer. Half his pack is bullbreeds, he must like em for a reason...I mean they cant be that bad, were talking about the same breed that was around the rascal kids, Helen keller, and Michael J Fox. :P
[right][snapback]233340[/snapback][/right]

[Flofocus]

Quote:The pit bull ban in Ontario may stop Bell from owning any more of that breed, but it seems almost certain he will own some other sort of dog. Court heard that he has been a dog owner for 20 years. There is nothing to stop him in the future from owning, say, Rottweilers, like the ones who seriously injured a two-year-old boy as he walked with adults to a Hamilton playground. Maybe euthanizing dogs and fining owners isn't enough. Maybe there are just some irresponsible people in this world who shouldn't own dogs at all.

Bolded part, now thats a problem.

to me...you shouldnt own more than 1 bull breed. More than 1 and your encouraging a pack mentality. If your not the leader of that pack, your asking for trouble. Everybook I've read also says this...you can own more than one dog, but not more than one bully breed.

Horrible thing that happened to the old lady, but like I said, it could have been prevented by the owner.

[Flofocus]

I list the REAL things that need to be looked at and you continue to praise the ban.

I'm done. Don;t bother.

I'll continue educating people properly by doing my own thing. I've changed a lot of peoples mind about the breed, and I'm very prud of that. I'll keep it going.

[ZTWsquared]

All I'm reading here is a story about two dog owners who have no interest in obeying the law ... hardly encouraging to anyone concerned about the future of dog attacks in this country.

And why is it so important to society that people should have the privilege of owning a dangerous dog? And how is your desire to socialize your dog any solution to the problem?

No offense to you personally ... but all I'm hearing is a lot of selfish whining about "what I want" and no concern whatsover about the fact that people are at risk in our society due to dog attack.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 10:19 AM Wrote:Funny, I will replace my dog with a bully breed again.  I truly love them.  I will walk them in public, have him in my backyard and fight with whomever will try and take that dog away from me.  I get the odd comment form ognorant people when i walk him now, that will never change wether its 1 year or 20 years from now.  It doesnt bother me anymore, I used to stop and give them a peice of my mind, but I dont even bother with their ignorance anymore.  The Ban has just added fuel for these people.  I was hiking with both the husky and staff near my house, we bumped into a rotweiler...off leash.  The dog charged at us, he came after Mac, I had to pull him away from being attacked and the owner gave ME s*** for not muzzling my 'pitbull'.  I told her, he isnt a pitbull, and you should really have your dog on a leash if he doesnt obey your commands.  Both of my dogs were on leashes BTW.

Thats a big thing that bothers me about this ban...how the fawk are you suppose to socialise your Bull breed when it isnt allowed in parks, can't be off leash, has to be muzzled...etc.  This dog requires serious socialisation at a very young age, yet this law prevents responsible owners from doing just that.  How is it helping the situation?
[right][snapback]233344[/snapback][/right]

[Flofocus]

ZTWsquared,Apr 5 2007, 10:46 AM Wrote:All I'm reading here is a story about two dog owners who have no interest in obeying the law ... hardly encouraging to anyone concerned about the future of dog attacks in this country.

And why is it so important to society that people should have the privilege of owning a dangerous dog? And how is your desire to socialize your dog any solution to the problem?

No offense to you personally ... but all I'm hearing is a lot of selfish whining about "what I want" and no concern whatsover about the fact that people are at risk in our society due to dog attack.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 10:19 AM Wrote:Funny, I will replace my dog with a bully breed again.  I truly love them.  I will walk them in public, have him in my backyard and fight with whomever will try and take that dog away from me.  I get the odd comment form ognorant people when i walk him now, that will never change wether its 1 year or 20 years from now.  It doesnt bother me anymore, I used to stop and give them a peice of my mind, but I dont even bother with their ignorance anymore.  The Ban has just added fuel for these people.  I was hiking with both the husky and staff near my house, we bumped into a rotweiler...off leash.  The dog charged at us, he came after Mac, I had to pull him away from being attacked and the owner gave ME s*** for not muzzling my 'pitbull'.  I told her, he isnt a pitbull, and you should really have your dog on a leash if he doesnt obey your commands.  Both of my dogs were on leashes BTW.

Thats a big thing that bothers me about this ban...how the fawk are you suppose to socialise your Bull breed when it isnt allowed in parks, can't be off leash, has to be muzzled...etc.  This dog requires serious socialisation at a very young age, yet this law prevents responsible owners from doing just that.  How is it helping the situation?
[right][snapback]233344[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]233349[/snapback][/right]

f*** do you ever have it wrong. I love this breed, I will do everything I can to make sure it doesnt go instinct. But I'm not selfish, I know people are sacred of the dog. I REALLY know there scared of the dog, and I take those feelings into account when I introduce my dog to them. I go outisde with a 6 foot hgih fenced in backyard to make sure these things dont happen when I know my dog wont do it anyways. Do you thtink I like going outside in the rain with him? Not realy, do I do it for me? Not really, I do it for you and your family that is walking by. You see my 'pitbull' looking dog in the backyard while your walking by with your kids, yet you feel comfortable when you see his master standing right behind him, with a 6 foot high fence between you. Selfish? Fawk you.

Your confusing my strong love for this dog with other things. You see it as a dangerous dog, I know what they can do, but I don't see my dogs as dangerous.

[ZTWsquared]

Again ... more statements about the obvious problem and no solutions offered ... and yes moving to another breed is potentially what will happen ... my concern (stated ad nauseum) is about dangerous dogs in general (not just a particular breed), specifically the bad ownership of dangerous dogs ... and if irresponsible ownership of other dangerous breeds continues to put people at risk ... then ownership of those breeds has to be banned too.

And no offense again, but stating "maybe there are just some irresponsible people in this world who shouldn't own dogs at all" made me say DUH?! out loud ... no kidding! I couldn't agree more, and so as a start I say at least let's do what we can to provent those people from owning dangerous dogs ... that's at least a good start.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 10:39 AM Wrote:

Quote:The pit bull ban in Ontario may stop Bell from owning any more of that breed, but it seems almost certain he will own some other sort of dog. Court heard that he has been a dog owner for 20 years. There is nothing to stop him in the future from owning, say, Rottweilers, like the ones who seriously injured a two-year-old boy as he walked with adults to a Hamilton playground. Maybe euthanizing dogs and fining owners isn't enough. Maybe there are just some irresponsible people in this world who shouldn't own dogs at all.

Bolded part, now thats a problem.

to me...you shouldnt own more than 1 bull breed. More than 1 and your encouraging a pack mentality. If your not the leader of that pack, your asking for trouble. Everybook I've read also says this...you can own more than one dog, but not more than one bully breed.

Horrible thing that happened to the old lady, but like I said, it could have been prevented by the owner.
[right][snapback]233347[/snapback][/right]

[ZTWsquared]

If I've got it wrong then why wasn't your first sentence here "you're right Ken, one dog attack is one too many." Instead we get to hear about your love of the breed and lamenting that some people are scared of it.

You don't think that this is selfish? Where is your concern about those who have been attacked and those who are still at risk of being attacked?

I applaud everything you do to make your dog a well-adjusted pet and to keep it well-behaved and no danger to others ... but how in the world do you think this has any relevance to what I'm talking about when the problem is the irresponsible ownership of dangerous dogs ... how do you propose to turn every dog owner into a good one like you ... and if you can't, then what do you propose to eliminate thr risk of dog attacks.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 10:51 AM Wrote:f*** do you ever have it wrong.  I love this breed, I will do everything I can to make sure it doesnt go instinct.  But I'm not selfish, I know people are sacred of the dog.  I REALLY know there scared of the dog, and I take those feelings into account when I introduce my dog to them.  I go outisde with a 6 foot hgih fenced in backyard to make sure these things dont happen when I know my dog wont do it anyways.  Do you thtink I like going outside in the rain with him?  Not realy, do I do it for me?  Not really, I do it for you and your family that is walking by.  You see my 'pitbull' looking dog in the backyard while your walking by with your kids, yet you feel comfortable when you see his master standing right behind him, with a 6 foot high fence between you.  Selfish?  Fawk you.

Your confusing my strong love for this dog with other things.
[right][snapback]233351[/snapback][/right]

[Flofocus]

Yeah your right, one dog attack is to many. I'm pretty we can both agree on that, so why bring it up?

1) Control Breeding and breeders with better laws. We bred dog agreesion in em, let's breed it out of them. Stop the puppy mills. Stop the breeders than churn these guys out @ $1200 a pop or more. All for the money....not for the love of a dogs. This will help a lot also on controlling the overpopulation of bully breeds, fawk, any overpopulation in our local humane societies.

3) Then we need to change our current licensing laws. Fawk this banning breed bulls*** . We have licenses for cars, guns, hunting, fishing, we need em for dogs. Obedience classes should be mandatory. When your even thinking about getting a dog, you should be in some sort of info seminar on teh available breeds and what the breed was about.

You shot them down, what else do you want me to say? You already know our government would be to lazy to set some sort of governing party for breeders & pet owners. You already know there such things in place for Zoos, restauraunts, smoking in public, unions, etc. Your already know your all for band aid solutions.

When theyre is greed involved, you need to control it. Breeders and the multiple assciations is clearly not enuff. Rules need to be set. By governments. And enforced. Once those rules are set, you will see people treating their dogs like they should, breeders breeding with responsibility, and a reduction in stray animals that end up in the shelters/fighting pits.

People are scared of guns, we try and control them, let's try harder with the above.

People are scared of a lot of things? Shall I change my life around for all the other things to?

I don't muzzle my dog because I honestly want to get a ticket and fight it. Prove a point. If the law was "any person with a 'large' breed must muzzle their animal in public" Then my attitude would really change.

Its a band aid solution. Simple as that, one that will just need more band aids.

Pitbull mauls child, piutbull killed. Pitbull owner gets a rotweiler, rotweiler attackes another dog, rotweiler killed. We ban rotties. Rotweiler and ex pitbull owner gets a cane corso, cane corso attacks kid, we ban the cane corsos....

I know it probably wont happen, but thats what were doing, were not going deep enuff into the problem.

And if you think I haven't written to my political parties about this issue, the local newspapers, your wrong. I have, but when its 80 against 20, you get drowned out by the other 'noise'.

Anyways, going in circles. I really do give up.

EDIT: Ken, I really agree with what your saying for the most part. But banning specific breeds wont stop maulings. Like you, I respect animals, I'm aware of what they could potentially do. And as a dog lover consider those things when looking at dogs to join the family. Not all people do, it's to easy to get a dog, any dog for that matter. But I'm not going to stop enjoying my life because people are scared of my activities. Maybe that's selfish, I don't think it is. You respect the breed, but you clearly don't like it also. I don't like rotweilers, not my kind of dog, but I do respect them. Very much so.

[ZTWsquared]

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:Yeah your right, one dog attack is to many.  I'm pretty we can both agree on that, so why bring it up?

Why bring it up? Because based on your posts you seem much more concerned about your personal ownership of a "pittie" than helping prevent dog attacks; I frankly wasn't sure where your priorities are.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:1) Control Breeding and breeders with better laws. We bred dog agreesion in em, let's breed it out of them. Stop the puppy mills. Stop the breeders than churn these guys out @ $1200 a pop or more. All for the money....not for the love of a dogs. This will help a lot also on controlling the overpopulation of bully breeds, fawk, any overpopulation in our local humane societies.

How does this solve the problem of irresponsible ownership … unless you plan on making breeders also responsible for the actions of the dogs they sell and the actions of the owners they sell to.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:3) Then we need to change our current licensing laws. Fawk this banning breed bulls***  . We have licenses for cars, guns, hunting, fishing, we need em for dogs. Obedience classes should be mandatory. When your even thinking about getting a dog, you should be in some sort of info seminar on teh available breeds and what the breed was about.

We already have dog licenses … the guy in Hamilton was fined $95 for having an unlicensed dog. How can the licensing process be changed that will have any effect on irresponsible ownership of dangerous dogs and the elimination of the risk of dog attack?

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:You shot them down, what else do you want me to say?  You already know our government would be to lazy to set some sort of governing party for breeders & pet owners.  You already know there such things in place for Zoos, restauraunts, smoking in public, unions, etc.  Your already know your all for band aid solutions.

Too lazy … or maybe they don’t believe that what you’re proposing is actually anything but pandering to the dog lobby and in fact does not represent a solution to the real problem.

And a “band aid” solution – that’s your biased characterization and it’s insulting … at least I acknowledge the problem and I’m working for a solution. The only thing you seem to be working for is the status quo and I’m disappointed that you think this is acceptable.

I’ve already acknowledged that a ban isn’t ideal (it’s possible that there is no ideal solution) … but that in no way means it isn’t worth supporting because one attack is too many, and one attack prevented is worth whatever support this idea gets.

If a band aid is all I’ve got then that’s what I’ll use … I’ll continue to put my Focus on the problem and I’ll put my support on anything that might be a solution, and I will gladly switch my support to any better solution that comes along … so over to you and other dog owners on that one. Give me a viable solution that’s better than a ban and is truly intended to eliminate the risk of dog attack and I’ll support it. So far all I’ve heard from the other side of this debate is … I love the breed, don’t punish the dog .. and, oh by the way, a ban won’t work because we won’t let it.

Unacceptable.

[Flofocus]

ZTWsquared,Apr 5 2007, 11:52 AM Wrote:Why bring it up? Because based on your posts you seem much more concerned about your personal ownership of a "pittie" than helping prevent dog attacks; I frankly wasn't sure where your priorities are.

How do you figure? I've already said that dog bites are bad, they shouldnt happen and I am very concerned about it. Why do you think I do the things with my own dogs? Again, were going in circles, and I love the selective quoting ;)

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:1) Control Breeding and breeders with better laws. We bred dog agreesion in em, let's breed it out of them. Stop the puppy mills. Stop the breeders than churn these guys out @ $1200 a pop or more. All for the money....not for the love of a dogs. This will help a lot also on controlling the overpopulation of bully breeds, fawk, any overpopulation in our local humane societies.

Quote:How does this solve the problem of irresponsible ownership … unless you plan on making breeders also responsible for the actions of the dogs they sell and the actions of the owners they sell to.

What was that about the selective quoting? Govern owners and breeders. And yes, some program for breeders to keep track of what these people are doing with the animals they sold should be in place. My breeder calls on holidays and Mac's bday to see what is going on. People like them should be encoraged to continue breeding their animals.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:3) Then we need to change our current licensing laws. Fawk this banning breed bulls***   . We have licenses for cars, guns, hunting, fishing, we need em for dogs. Obedience classes should be mandatory. When your even thinking about getting a dog, you should be in some sort of info seminar on teh available breeds and what the breed was about.

Quote:We already have dog licenses … the guy in Hamilton was fined $95 for having an unlicensed dog. How can the licensing process be changed that will have any effect on irresponsible ownership of dangerous dogs and the elimination of the risk of dog attack?

pfff...You call that a fine? You call that regulating? lol. Thats my point, needs to be tuffer laws, and enforced. Plus I'm thinking more like, You have to get a license to get a dog. Yeah it would be a lot of work, but I'm willing ot bet both my dogs it would work better than the current situation, and yes I've written to them about this, and got some fancy automated response. Like I said, lazy.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 11:19 AM Wrote:You shot them down, what else do you want me to say?  You already know our government would be to lazy to set some sort of governing party for breeders & pet owners.  You already know there such things in place for Zoos, restauraunts, smoking in public, unions, etc.  Your already know your all for band aid solutions.

Quote:Too lazy … or maybe they don’t believe that what you’re proposing is actually anything but pandering to the dog lobby and in fact does not represent a solution to the real problem.

And a “band aid” solution – that’s your biased characterization and it’s insulting … at least I acknowledge the problem and I’m working for a solution. The only thing you seem to be working for is the status quo and I’m disappointed that you think this is acceptable.

I’ve already acknowledged that a ban isn’t ideal (it’s possible that there is no ideal solution) … but that in no way means it isn’t worth supporting because one attack is too many, and one attack prevented is worth whatever support this idea gets.

If a band aid is all I’ve got then that’s what I’ll use … I’ll continue to put my Focus on the problem and I’ll put my support on anything that might be a solution, and I will gladly switch my support to any better solution that comes along … so over to you and other dog owners on that one. Give me a viable solution that’s better than a ban and is truly intended to eliminate the risk of dog attack and I’ll support it. So far all I’ve heard from the other side of this debate is … I love the breed, don’t punish the dog .. and, oh by the way, a ban won’t work because we won’t let it.


[right][snapback]233386[/snapback][/right]

Im all for Status quo? FAR from it cheif.

Quote:Unacceptable.

Completely.

[ZTWsquared]

I’ve never met you but I’m sure you’re a nice guy … but I see the words on the screen and the only thing that comes to mind is “lip service” … I don’t sense any strong commitment on your part to the elimination of dog attacks … “dog bites are bad” isn’t exactly the condemnation I’d expect from someone dedicated to eliminating the risks posed by dangerous dogs – and “they shouldn’t happen” combined with “let’s breed it out of them” isn’t exactly a powerful call to action for change.

Licensing is one way to administrate who is technically allowed to do what … own a gun, go fishing, own or drive a car … but this is no substitute for acceptable and proper behaviour (talking about the dog owner) which is also compounded by the fact that dogs have their own will, whereas guns and cars don’t. Different licensing and higher licensing costs might have a play in the solution … but people who don’t obey licensing laws are typically only found out after something bad happens … it rarely acts as a deterrent to unacceptable behaviour.

And by the way … your example of the ban on smoking in public places is a good example of what I’m talking about in terms of modifying behaviour … smokers hate the idea that they are being told where and when they can smoke … but a lot of people also admit that the ban on smoking in certain places (along with the changing general attitude towards smokers) has caused them to quit.

Band aid solution … maybe … but at least people are quitting smoking when otherwise they wouldn’t have.

Maybe dog owners aren’t happy being told what breeds they can legally own … but if the ban (and the changing general attitude towards dangerous dogs) saves just one person from injury or death, then in the absence of any other action being taken, it’s worth it.

To my mind anyone opposed to the ban who doesn’t have a viable alternative way to eliminate the risk posed by dangerous dogs, is the same as the person who claims that their smoking hurts only them, and the rest of us should butt out. That’s the kind of attitude that perpetuates the problem and does nothing to solve it.

[Flofocus]

I still dont see how banning breeds will stop maulings. If you think its lip service, fine. Tell me what else I can do? Please, tell me. I'd love to hear your ideas on it. Dont bother if its 'Ban away'. :rolleyes: But keep taking things out of context, Its funny.

I smoke, yet I agree with the ban. I smoke downwind when Im around non smokers. I smoke outside only at my residence, I'm trying to quit because I shouldnt be doing it. Not my fault there smokers out there not concerned for others health. Same thing here, yet I love my dogs and will do anything possible to keep them from harms way. I will also make sure that they do not harm anybody in anyway. This is something I want to enjoy in life, completely different than smoking.


Were to similar, you think I'm lip serive, I think the same of this ban. It does nothing to stop dog bites other than taking a misunderstood breed out of the picture. It made the majority of people happy, got the douchebag some points...If you cant see that, then I cannot help you.

And beleive me, if I had money, power, and time, I'd follow this through a lot more. Right now, I do what I can. I'd love to be able to take all the dogs out of shelters and find them homes. I'd love to become a temporary home to house these guys until they find a good place to live. I'd love to be best buds with the correct politicians to implement the proper laws and regulations to really fix the issue. I'm just 1 guy, not much I can do. If some guy on the national geo channel cant change peoples mind, then who am I in the big picture?? Honestly?

For you to sit there and say I'm lip service is really insulting, I've clearly not expressed how I truly feel about this ban. Maybe one day we'll meet and I can do it better face to face. B)

[ZTWsquared]

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 03:31 PM Wrote:I still dont see how banning breeds will stop maulings.  If you think its lip service, fine.  Tell me what else I can do?  Please, tell me.  I'd love to hear your ideas on it.  Dont bother if its 'Ban away'. :rolleyes:  But keep taking things out of context, Its funny.

It's not funny at all and I'm pretty good at discerning context.

Me tell you what else??? if I knew the answer to that we'd be talking about it ... I'm looking to the dog owners for answers and you're not coming up with any. I'm supporting an action that I think will improve things ... besides the status quo what are you supporting?

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 03:31 PM Wrote:I will also make sure that they do not harm anybody in anyway.  This is something I want to enjoy in life, completely different than smoking. The similarity is what it sometimes takes to get people's attention and modify certain behaviour ... and a ban seems to fit the bill in both of these cases.

Were to similar, you think I'm lip serive, I think the same of this ban.  It does nothing to stop dog bites other than taking a misunderstood breed out of the picture.

And how do you know this ... logic dictates otherwise and to me the formula seems pretty simple to understand ...

Fewer dangerous dogs + reduced access of said dogs by irresponsible dog owners = less risk of dog attack.

To put it simply: a zero pit bull population by definition means zero pit bull attacks on people - incontrovertible math and there's a sliding scale that goes along with that.

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 03:31 PM Wrote:It made the majority of people happy, got the douchebag some points...If you cant see that, then I cannot help you.[right][snapback]233434[/snapback][/right]

The fact that you think this all about politics says to me you are the one who just doesn't get it ... this is about people's safety and well-being and it would be great if you as a dog owner were interested in making things better in that regard, instead of promising to disobey the law and arguing to protect your own narrow interests.

[Flofocus]

So what do we do when say in 10 years from now we move onto rotties being in the media everyday? Ban em?

when do we stop?

Your still not stopping dog bites and maulings with this ban. yes you stopped pitbulls from attacking. Great, that is good news. Still doesnt solve the problem, which is at the other end of the leash. Which you agree with...so with that note, I'm really done

[ZTWsquared]

Flofocus,Apr 5 2007, 03:57 PM Wrote:So what do we do when say in 10 years from now we move onto rotties being in the media everyday?  Ban em?

when do we stop?

Your still not stopping dog bites and maulings with this ban.  yes you stopped pitbulls from attacking.  Great, that is good news.  Still doesnt solve the problem, which is at the other end of the leash.
[right][snapback]233439[/snapback][/right]

The problem at the other end of the leash becomes mitigated by reducing the number of dangerous breeds available to be legally put on the leash.

If in 10 years we haven't found other ways to prevent attacks by dangerous dogs, then perhaps the banning of other breeds becomes necessary; to my mind it is entirely up to dog owners and the dog industry. And the way we start is by adopting a zero tolerance of dog attacks.

When do we stop ... when attacks by dangerous dogs stop ... isn't that the point?

Will we stop dog bites and maulings with this ban ... not totally and perhaps not even greatlyin total... but it is a step towards reducing the possibility that this one breed that is especially capable of seriously injuring and killing people, and importantly is known to do so, will be involved in significant numbers of events.

I have no doubt that there are more people bitten by poodles or pomeranians [or insert small nervous breed here] than by pitbulls. Unfortunately for pitbulls and their owners, they also have the disposition and the physical capability of carrying a biting event through to a serious injury or death ... poodles and pomeranians not so much which is why people aren't calling for their ban.

[NOS2Go4Me]

I think it boils down to the fact that unlike other breeds, particularly large breeds, they retain a short fuse no matter what's done with them. Given the opportunity, dog for dog, they'll snap. The difference is, even if I'm wrong... the damage done is a hell of a lot worse than 90% of all the other breeds out there.

Don't get me wrong, I think pits are great. What I am is a self-confessed Great Dane-aholic. I love Great Danes. But, I've also seen one go bad and I've seen the damage it can do. Somehow, even though a Dane is a great hunting dog (for wild boars) by heritage, they're generally a lot easier to train, a LOT more docile and a lot more manageable by nature. Why that is, I couldn't begin to explain.

Perhaps if you really could "breed it out of them" (Pits) by NOT inbreeding them so much for the ferociousness that all the morons seem to love... there could be a turning point in the public's eye. Once again, the downfall of a true democracy is that majority rules. End of story.