Time to ban Pitbulls from Calgary

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

Lol of course there is! Strange comment.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok... what is it? I mean I get the purpose of animals that actually do some sort of work, but beyond selfish reasons, what are the reasons for simply having a pet (dog, cat, bird, fish) other than “I like it.”

Could there not be plenty of reasons given to just ban pets in general, instead of just one breed of one animal?

No. Your comment is getting stranger. Dogs and humans are a 40 thousand year old stand out example of a mutually beneficial relationship. If you want to argue fish in a bowl or birds in a cage is unethical that's completely different. But banning domestication after the fact is absurd and utterly cruel.

[Fuzz]

My cat hunts mice and spiders. That's good enough reason for me, but she is also awesome.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

This is literally the guns don't kill people, people kill people battle. But if that person didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have been able to kill 58 in Vegas.. stupid argument for pitbull, theyre a dangerous breed. It's why nobody in Canada owns Alligators, Lions or Komodo Dragons, they're unfit as pets.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

So you are proposing to Ban the AR-15 but not ban all other high capacity, high velocity, semi automatic rifles.

The substitution affect will take over and we will be back here with a different breed. Unless you expand the list of banned dogs greatly to include all breeds that these types of people own you are just going to shift the problem. The AR-15 is popular but ban it by brand name only and another gun with the same features will take its place.

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok... what is it? I mean I get the purpose of animals that actually do some sort of work, but beyond selfish reasons, what are the reasons for simply having a pet (dog, cat, bird, fish) other than “I like it.”

Could there not be plenty of reasons given to just ban pets in general, instead of just one breed of one animal?

Your not being honest with yourself, you know there are numerous reasons to have a pet. I’m not going to give you a list of reasons as to why one would want a pet, having read many of your posts you are an intelligent poster and I think you know the reasons for having a pet are obvious. Some things dont need to be debated endlessly.

As far as breed bans go that definitely is a topic of debate.

[transplant99]

Saw this posted some time ago on a different site having the same dumb arguments.

Between 1965 and 2001, there have been 60 lethal dog-attacks in the United States involving a Pit Bull. Compared to most breeds, that figure is indeed quite high. There were only 14 lethal attacks involving Dobermans, for instance. But taking into account the overall populations of each breed measured, the rate of aggression among Pit Bulls is comparatively quite normal. Even low. During that 36-year period, only 0.0012 percent of the estimated Pit Bull population was involved in a fatal attack. Compare that to the purebred Chow Chow, which has a fatal-attack rate of 0.005 percent, and consistently ranks as the least child-friendly dog breed on the market. Why don’t media reports of attacks involving Chows eclipse those involving Pit Bulls? Because there are only 240,000 registered Chow Chows currently residing in the United States. And frankly, the broad-skulled, wide-mouthed Pit Bull makes for a more convincing monster than the comically puffy Chow.”

And I am not even a fan of the breed as i prefer smaller dogs, but certainly do love animals in general.

Banning breeds is asinine. Banning bad owners would be a better solution.

[wretched34]

Pitbull arguments really are pointless, because there's truly only 2 sides. Those who hate them, and those who love them, there is very little neutral ground on the topic.

I found this to be a good little read, though you can definitely feel the bias, but it does use real facts to push it's agenda.

https://barkpost.com/good/pit-bulls-...-americas-dog/

"Pitbulls" were not originally bred to kill people, or other animals for that matter. Baiting was for entertainment, and a show of how well trained these dogs could be.
"Pitbulls" do not have the strongest bite of all dogs, nor do they have the mythical lock jaw. The fact behind this comes from baiting times, when the dog was trained to grasp onto the fleshy part of a bulls nose, and get it to submit to the ground and to pin it there. They were actually bred not to bite to cause damage or to harm, which you can clearly see in Bulldogs now with under bites and small teeth.
More recently though, there has obviously been breeding for illegal fighting, but this does not mean every pitbull out there is a bred and trained killer. I'd actually confidently say there are very few true fighting dogs out there as family pets. What you're seeing in the media is idiot owners who want the "big bad pitbull" so go out of their way to make them look and act aggressively. This is irresponsible and selfish ownership.
It's actually easier to raise a well behaved "pitbull" then it is to have an aggressive one.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok... what is it? I mean I get the purpose of animals that actually do some sort of work, but beyond selfish reasons, what are the reasons for simply having a pet (dog, cat, bird, fish) other than “I like it.”

Could there not be plenty of reasons given to just ban pets in general, instead of just one breed of one animal?

http://time.com/4728315/science-says...mental-health/

People who have pets tend to have lower blood pressure, heart rate and heart-disease risk than those who don’t. Those health boons may come from the extra exercise that playing and walking require, and the stress relief of having a steady best friend on hand.

Scientists are now digging up evidence that animals can also help improve mental health, even for people with challenging disorders. Though the studies are small, the benefits are impressive enough that clinical settings are opening their doors to animal-assisted interventions–pet therapy, in other words–used alongside conventional medicine. “It used to be one of the great no-no’s to think of an animal in a hospital,” says Alan Beck, director of the Center for the Human-Animal Bond at Purdue University, citing the fear of causing infection. “Now, I don’t know of any major children’s hospital that doesn’t have at least some kind of animal program.”

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Saw this posted some time ago on a different site having the same dumb arguments.







And I am not even a fan of the breed as i prefer smaller dogs, but certainly do love animals in general.

Banning breeds is asinine. Banning bad owners would be a better solution.

REQUEST:
If you are going to post quotes from articles and graphics from other sites, please provide the link so we can read the rest of it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

This is literally the guns don't kill people, people kill people battle. But if that person didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have been able to kill 58 in Vegas.. stupid argument for pitbull, theyre a dangerous breed. It's why nobody in Canada owns Alligators, Lions or Komodo Dragons, they're unfit as pets.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Any debate of this type has to consider the risk factor otherwise you would end up taking the position that anything that poses any kind of risk needs to be banned. Guns kill significantly more people than pit bulls do in this country every year, as does alcohol and car accidents yet no one is calling for a ban on driving. Instead, if you happen to be consistently risky behind the wheel, they don’t let you drive anymore. The same can be done with poor dog owners. If the owners are held to a higher standard through fines or other punitive measures then the problem should fix itself, either owners will do a better job raising their pet or they won’t choose to own a breed they aren’t able to safely raise.

I really think any data presented on bite frequency is a little misleading. Of course the dog with the strongest bite is going to have the highest number of reported incidents, but that doesn’t mean they are the breed most prone to biting. I got bit by a shihtzu when I was around 12 years old, I went to pet him but didn’t realize he was guarding a bone so he bit my hand without warning. It hurt and bled but it’s not as if I had to go to the hospital which means it never got reported. While people might say that isn’t a severe incident(and it wasn’t) had it happened to the baby or toddler who were in the room at the same time it likely could have been. Any dog is capable of attacking. If it is the strength of their bite that is the issue, then which breed takes their place once they get banned and how long until we have the same debate about that breed?

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Saw this posted some time ago on a different site having the same dumb arguments.







And I am not even a fan of the breed as i prefer smaller dogs, but certainly do love animals in general.

Banning breeds is asinine. Banning bad owners would be a better solution.

Wow talk about some right wing propaganda. They currently killing humans around 25 per year and you bring out some unknown stat that is 17 years old showing that in 36 years they killed 60 humans.... I'm sure in 1915 there were no deaths caused by pitbulls.

and then you top it off with some super cute pic of a pit. I guess i could post some of the aftermaths of pitbull attacks to prove my point too.

NSFW!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

REQUEST:
If you are going to post quotes from articles and graphics from other sites, please provide the link so we can read the rest of it.

Yes i might have made all that stuff up!!

https://barkpost.com/pit-bulls-history-of-americas-dog/

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Wow talk about some right wing propaganda. They currently killing humans around 25 per year and you bring out some unknown stat that is 17 years old showing that in 36 years they killed 60 humans.... I'm sure in 1915 there were no deaths caused by pitbulls.

and then you top it off with some super cute pic of a pit. I guess i could post some of the aftermaths of pitbull attacks to prove my point too.

NSFW!

LOL!!!!! Now its a conservative conspiracy to keep pitbulls around? Like...seriously?

You may want to look up the difference between propoganda and facts. Regardless of how old the facts may be, they were indeed what they were. Maybe some of that has changed? I have no idea actually but that is not what i was posting it for.

As for the picture i posted, it serves a purpose but i have a feeling it went right over your head.

You judge each dog individually instead of wanting to obliterate the entire species. Thought it would be obvious.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

LOL!!!!! Now its a conservative conspiracy to keep pitbulls around? Like...seriously?

You may want to look up the difference between propoganda and facts. Regardless of how old the facts may be, they were indeed what they were. Maybe some of that has changed? I have no idea actually but that is not what i was posting it for.

As for the picture i posted, it serves a purpose but i have a feeling it went right over your head.

You judge each dog individually instead of wanting to obliterate the entire species. Thought it would be obvious.

Have you not read this thread and just jumped in on page 5? Whats the point of putting out something 17 years old when there have been stats show from the past 3 years. If pitbulls are still killing only 1.5people a year I doubt there would be this much coverage by the evil left wing media every week.

Dog's behavior change over time. Are you looking for yearly assessments on pitbulls? Hey if that is the case i'm all for it. Most of the owners are prob poor as dirt and would prob give up their pit then to go through that.

[flamesfever]

The first thing I do at the dog walk is to survey the area for any Pitbulls. If I spot one, I usually try to take a different path to avoid it.

I grew up in Toronto with friends who had a Pitbull cross. He was great with all the kids on the block. But if a strange dog came on our street, he was extremely dangerous. He killed no fewer than three small dogs in the area.

I had an incident a few years ago where a large Pitbull ran over and jumped on my large unneutered male lab, in a very threatening manner. Fortunately my lab remained very still and the Pitbull backed off. As I passed the owner, who was a twenty someodd, pugilistic looking person, said "My dog has issues with unneutered males". I felt like saying something, but figured it would do no good.

I admit that the vast majority of Pitbulls are good natured, but all you have to do is run into the odd one, and it could prove a disaster...particularly with small dogs.

I would not be sorry if Pitbulls were banned.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Have you not read this thread and just jumped in on page 5? Whats the point of putting out something 17 years old when there have been stats show from the past 3 years. If pitbulls are still killing only 1.5people a year I doubt there would be this much coverage by the evil left wing media every week.

Dog's behavior change over time. Are you looking for yearly assessments on pitbulls? Hey if that is the case i'm all for it. Most of the owners are prob poor as dirt and would prob give up their pit then to go through that.

Only if they are trained to do so.

Pitbulls did not suddenly become way worse/aggressive in the last 15 years or whatever...how would that even happen? Is it because there are more of them that there are more incidents? That would make sense actually.

And why is everything left wing/right wing with you?

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The first thing I do at the dog walk is to survey the area for any Pitbulls. If I spot one, I usually try to take a different path to avoid it.

I grew up in Toronto with friends who had a Pitbull cross. He was great with all the kids on the block. But if a strange dog came on our street, he was extremely dangerous. He killed no fewer than three small dogs in the area.

I had an incident a few years ago where a large Pitbull ran over and jumped on my large unneutered male lab, in a very threatening manner. Fortunately my lab remained very still and the Pitbull backed off. As I passed the owner, who was a twenty someodd, pugilistic looking person, said "My dog has issues with unneutered males". I felt like saying something, but figured it would do no good.

I admit that the vast majority of Pitbulls are good natured, but all you have to do is run into the odd one, and it could prove a disaster...particularly with small dogs.

I would not be sorry if Pitbulls were banned.

Were your friends "good owners"?

To start why can't the City just pass a bylaw requiring all big dogs who can do great damage to wear a muzzle in public? Or is that too inhumane for them? Sounds like an easy solution to start.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Only if they are trained to do so.

Pitbulls did not suddenly become way worse/aggressive in the last 15 years or whatever...how would that even happen? Is it because there are more of them that there are more incidents? That would make sense actually.

And why is everything left wing/right wing with you?

Well according to the stats they have changed in the past 15 years! Are there 5,000% more pitbulls in 2018 then 2001? So what? you still believe they only kill 2 people a year? How about the permanent disfigurements they cause on people every year? That's life changing.

and you said you love all dogs and especially like small dogs. How would you feel if a pitbull tore apart your dog? Don't forget they killed 37,000 other dogs and cats in 2015.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Were your friends "good owners"?

To start why can't the City just pass a bylaw requiring all big dogs who can do great damage to wear a muzzle in public? Or is that too inhumane for them? Sounds like an easy solution to start.

Yes, my friends were great with their dog. We all grew up with "Joey". All of us loved the dog, and the dog loved us, in spite of what he did to other dogs.

I have always thought that requiring muzzles on Pitbulls in public would be a good solution...with heavy fines for non compliance. Many dogs require muzzles as they have a tendency to eat poo. They don't seem to be particularly bothered by wearing the muzzle.

[wretched34]

No dogs are bred to be human aggressive, including "Pitbulls" even those bred for fighting are not bred to be human aggressive. The reason "Pitbulls" are the top choice for dog fighters is because of their undivided loyalty to their humans, they are literally willing to die doing what they are told to do. There are many instances where dogs are taken from terrible situation and are rehabbed to become great loyal, affectionate pets.

What I don't understand is this:
When a child is raised in a bad home, with abusive and inattentive caregivers, and becomes a bully at school, and picks on other kids, and is physically aggressive, often it's "Oh, well, little Johnny has it pretty tough at home, there's not much we can do".
Later in life, that poor upbringing is often used as a defense when it comes to criminal cases, when that young Bully turned to a life of crime.

Yet, when it's a dog raised by those same abusive, inattentive caregivers, the only logical narrative is the dog is bad and should be destroyed.

Now, I'm not trying to say a humans life is only as valuable as a dogs, or vice versa, my point is that like children, the environment a dog is raised in plays a large roll in the dogs behaviour. In fact, it effects dogs more, as unlike humans, they don't truly have a mind of their own, they are trained, and conditioned to do as they are told by what ever influencing force is around them.

It's pretty clear that the real issue is poor and inexperienced ownership.

[OMG!WTF!]

On one side you have Denis Codderre, possibly the dumbest person in any field let alone politics. And on the other, love him or hate him, ex-president Obama. His 2013 statement on pit bull bans...

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation—research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.”

Pitbulls attacks were unheard of before the 1980's. So what changed? Likely the increased popularity of dog fighting in the USA. There are so many different things you can do to benefit the breed and banning them really isn't it.