[Flofocus]

Your opinion is that pitbulls are dangerous dogs and should be banned, mine is the complete opposite.
Your opinion on this bill was it was directed at pitbull breeds only, I know it wasn't (I know the law since I'm directly affected by it)

Breed banning wont do s**t to protect the public from dangerous dogs. As long as your applying band aids to the bigger problems, the problems will always be there.

We won't agree on this and I'll leave it at that.

[ZTWsquared]

(05-04-2010, 07:45 AM)Flofocus Wrote: Your opinion is that pitbulls are dangerous dogs and should be banned, mine is the complete opposite.
Your opinion on this bill was it was directed at pitbull breeds only, I know it wasn't (I know the law since I'm directly affected by it)

Breed banning wont do s**t to protect the public from dangerous dogs. As long as your applying band aids to the bigger problems, the problems will always be there.

We won't agree on this and I'll leave it at that.

I know that neither of us wants to drag this out, and we essentially agree to disagree ... but I did want to respond to this.

It is not my opinion that pit bulls are dangerous ... it is an actuarial fact ... and again, it is not my opinion that the legistlation is only directed at pit bulls, but it is significant that they are the only breed to be singled out in this legislation - again, not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

The bigger problems as you call them, assuming you're talking about bad owners, has been persistent for decades and rather than showing any signs of improvement as a result of any actions taken by dog owners themselves, the problem is getting worse.

Banning specific breeds will in fact protect the public from those breeds to whatever extent dog owners obey the law ... zero pit bulls means unequivocally zero pit bull attacks ... and that is regardless of whether or not you agree that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or not, and whether or not you feel the legislation is fair and justified ... the zero corelation is a mathematical absolute and cannot be denied.

If your argument is that in the absense of pit bulls the public is at the same risk from other breeds - then I would be open to being convinced of this ... but if your argument is that the elimination of pit bulls will not eliminate pit bull attacks, well - I think the the fallacy of this argument is obvious.

[Flofocus]

(05-04-2010, 11:28 AM)ZTWsquared Wrote: I know that neither of us wants to drag this out, and we essentially agree to disagree ... but I did want to respond to this.

You're right, we will need to agree to disagree, theres so many problems with this law and what people like you think it does for you, its not even funny. false sense of secuity.

[ZTWsquared]

(05-04-2010, 10:25 PM)Flofocus Wrote:

(05-04-2010, 11:28 AM)ZTWsquared Wrote: I know that neither of us wants to drag this out, and we essentially agree to disagree ... but I did want to respond to this.

You're right, we will need to agree to disagree, theres so many problems with this law and what people like you think it does for you, its not even funny. false sense of secuity.

When did I say I had any sense of security as a result of this legislation - false or otherwise - I didn't and I don't. But again, that wasn't the intent.

Because of course bad owners will be bad owners regardless of the breed they own (something I assume we agree on) ... but we're talking about a very small step here that will do two things ... potentially eliminate the threat of pit bull attacks in Ontario (to whatever degree Ontarians obey the law), ... and it has perhaps opened the eyes of dog owners in general, and especially those who have other so-called dangerous breeds, that they have a significant responsibility to the rest of the community to ensure their dogs do not endanger anyone; and should behave accordingly.

As a good dog owner Nate I see how this legislation is unfair to you should you wish to have a pit bull ... and I'm not insensitive to it. But until you or a group of dog owners can come up with a plan to eliminate pit bull attacks that has the same certainty as eliminating the breed, I'll continue to vote in favour of the community in general versus the priviledges of a few dog owners..

[Flofocus]

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. People need to think for themsleves, people need to stop being sheep. I'm not going to change fawk-awl. Retarded politicians who put dumb ass laws can certainly change things (better or for worse), but not me. Trying to convine the sheep out there that the breed isnt the problem would be a fulltime job, I dont have the time or energy to do that. I can barely squeeze in the evening walk for my baby eating dog anymore, nevermind a crusade against bullshit laws.

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. Do as you please, reply all you want, but you will not sway me in thinking this law is a good idea. At all.

Let's leave it at that.

[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.

[Flofocus]

Ah yes, the good ol manitoba example. Go look at the number of reported bites by other large breeds, they went up This has been discussed on the bully boards over and over again. Supporters of this law always bring the manitoba example up. Sure, you slowed down pitbull bites, but you increased other breed bites by banning the pitbull. Didnt work to well in the end, now did it? Exaclty what we and the true experts said would happen? Yep.

Take the stats with a grain of salt anyways. They are not accurate. I think we can agree that if there is 20 000 pitbulls in Ontario vs 500 Cane corsos, we'll understand why there is more pitbull bites. Pitbull type dogs were a very popular breed to have before the ban. Many, many, many pitbulls out there that havent even lifted a lip towards anybody but we obviously dont expect them to make the front pages of the papers "80 pound pitbull almost drowns 4 month old child with his kisses" isnt exactly news worthy. The news puts a spin on it. People love blood and gore. Now everyone thinks we have this huge problem of pitbulls running loose killing everyone. Such fawkin BS its not even funny.

And yes, I have quite a few suggestions on how to make the laws better. But its the same stuff others brought forward when this law went into place but the politicians didnt want to hear it. Easier for them to put in a band aid solution to look like hero in the eyes of people like you "Oh fawk - about time we did something about these pitbulls, I can walk safely at night now". Its Probably way too much work for them to implement something that would make sense. Again - if I had all the free time in the world to fight this, I would. With a young son, house projects, part time busines and a fulltime job, I really dont want to add anything else to my plate. Call it being scofflaw or whatever, I dont really care Ken....in the end I support responsible bully owners and not band aid laws. Yes, Im the minority, again, I dont care. I'll tell you where I will concentrate my enerygy - taking care of pitbull type dogs - because at the end of the day, they are wonderful dogs, great with children and are no different than any other properly trained dog. Well maybe they like belly rubs more than the average dog.

You support the law, I dont. You think its making good progress, I think its making none.

I am really done with this thread. lol