Time to ban Pitbulls from Calgary

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

My uncle just last week had his Pomeranian critically injured by another dog and had to be put down. The owner of the other dog felt terrible and paid for the vet bills which was decent of him but he still should have had better control of his dog. The dog was a Labrador Retriever. Should we ban all Labs? Also, again you are quoting numbers that are totally wrong because multiple breeds of dogs are referred to as Pit Bulls to pad statistics for those opposed to the breed.

Stats padding... sounds like fake news. If you can't spot a pitbull in the park or a pitbull type you don't know dogs then.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If you were going to be attacked by one of those four dogs, which one would you be most afraid of?

I would be equally afraid of any of those dogs attacking me.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

The one with the ####tiest owner.

Probably the Rotty I think. The Pitbulls I don't think can get to my neck or face. So if being attacked I will end up with some serious leg damage but I don't think I will be over powered and taken to the ground like a Shepard or a Rotty could.

But overall I don't think I personally would see any significant difference in risk in those breeds (and this could be my ignorance) in the hands of a bad owner.

I think it's the size of the jaw of a Pitbull that scares me the most. It reminds me of the wolves up in the Rainbow area that feed on moose. The jaw is designed to break bones.

Likewise, I would imagine when Pitbulls were involved in fighting, they would try to get hold of an opponent's limb and break it. This would allow them to move in for the kill.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Stats padding... sounds like fake news. If you can't spot a pitbull in the park or a pitbull type you don't know dogs then.

Again...read this. It is not stat "padding" it would be inaccurate identification of what a pitbull is.

If its even somewhat true, the stats you are relying on for your argument, simply aren't what you/they say they are. I guess accuracy and truthfulness doesnt matter to you?

It's not fake news, but it would be a result of sensationalistic reporting, something that occurs all the time.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steff...b_8112394.html

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Ok i can go with this. No pitbull ban if
- new owners take a mandatory dog training course with the SPCA
- $2000 fine if your pitbull is not muzzled in public
- $5,000 fine if your pitbull escapes your yard, $10k for 2nd offense, $15k for 3rd offense...
- 1 month in jail if your pitbull bites another animal or person.
- 6 months in jail if your pitbull kills another animal

and BAN future adult pitbulls from entering Canada from the US. That is some mind blowing stupid stuff.

Let's put the same controls in place for children while we're at it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[GGG]

But aren't you making the AR-15 isn't an assault weapon argument?

When people say ban Pitbulls. They mean Pitbull like dogs. It only inflates the numbers if people use registered Pitbulls to get the population and all pitbull like dogs to get the number of bites.

And if you aren't talking about Bite rate than all of the statistics should be dismissed as meaningless.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Let's put the same controls in place for children while we're at it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

You just won the fur baby Olympics.

Congratulations

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Wow talk about some right wing propaganda.

What the hell??

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[RichKlit]

Haha no thread is safe from political rhetoric!!!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If you were going to be attacked by one of those four dogs, which one would you be most afraid of?

Me personally? The Rotweiller. They look like they have bad intentions at all times and they are so friggin big they would be a handful to wrestle with.

But ALL of them could be a problem, no question.

I had a bad interaction with a dobie when i was a teenager, he got a chunk of me before i busted his jaw. He left gashes on my arm though.

Just 4 years ago i had to enter backyards as part of my employment. I had rung the doorbell and knocked as was protocol. No one answered so i went in to assess the guys gas meter, he then let a daschund out and it came flying at me. He then came around the corner and said, "oh sorry i thought you were someone else" and while we were chatting that little prick dog of his latched onto my calve. That was good for 9 stitches. I could have had the dog taken from him and probably put down, but i just let it be.

All dogs can attack and bite...some are obviously going to be worse than others. The idea of eliminating one breed cause they are the boogeymen of dogs is ridiculous though, especially when it appears many of them are misidentified as that breed. Shephards, mastiffs, danes, chows...all have aggressive members of their breed. All breeds do.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Based on this site, the percentage of pit bull type dogs in the US was 4.9% in 2016.
US Dog Breeds

If the 70%+ representation in deadly attacks is accurate, there's undeniably an insanely disproportionate ratio of violent attacks to these related breeds.

Unless these stats are incorrect, this really should be the baseline of the debate. Are the breeds to blame, or are bad owners being drawn to these breeds and causing this disproportion?
That's a valid question; but lets not pretend the disproportion doesn't even exist.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Based on this site, the percentage of pit bull type dogs in the US was 4.9% in 2016.
US Dog Breeds

If the 70%+ representation in deadly attacks is accurate, there's undeniably an insanely disproportionate ratio of violent attacks to these related breeds.

Unless these stats are incorrect, this really should be the baseline of the debate. Are the breeds to blame, or are bad owners being drawn to these breeds and causing this disproportion?
That's a valid question; but lets not pretend the disproportion doesn't even exist.

Agree with everything you say.

My issue is that everywhere i am reading stuff, it appears that several breeds are being identified all as pits. IF that is the case, all the numbers are completely out of whack, and the more i read it seems like that is indeed the case. We need accurate numbers to make any base decision on.

I will say at least anecdotally, pitbulls do seem to attract the group of owners we can all identify as....less than ideal however. Certainly not all or even most, but that certain segment of people who should be the last ones raising big animals...or animals of any sort...or children for that matter.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I will say at least anecdotally, pitbulls do seem to attract the group of owners we can all identify as....less than ideal however. Certainly not all or even most, but that certain segment of people who should be the last ones raising big animals...or animals of any sort...or children for that matter.

Let's say somehow we could get rid of pitbulls. Would these people stop owning big, aggressive dogs?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Let's say somehow we could get rid of pitbulls. Would these people stop owning big, aggressive dogs?

That's the thing. Probably not, though some may not own at all as pits have become some sort of status symbol for these types.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Let's say somehow we could get rid of pitbulls. Would these people stop owning big, aggressive dogs?

Are pitbulls a topic of conversation because they are big and aggressive or is there maybe some other tidbit not being mentioned here? These dogs have some serious reputation.

And sure, people are too quick to call everything of resemblance a pitbull. But here is a question, why is that not an issue for poodles or terriers? What if the pitbull like dogs have a lot of pitbull in them and happen to be the worst offenders because of it? Maybe if it looks like a pitbull and acts like a pitbull is a pitbull, just not a purebred?

Dont mean to lump it all on you, but those are some questions not being addressed by some here.
Muddying the waters by questioning if a subject dog is 100% pure isn't going to save the next kid that gets mauled.

I dont know if a ban is a way to go, but I really think ownership of this sort of dogs should be controlled. These dogs are just too dangerous to be left with anyone.

[Amethyst]

I think before a ban is considered, we need to figure out what our aim is. If it's to prevent dogs attacking people, a ban on one breed will not prevent that. Pretty much any larger dog is capable of doing that. People who own pitbulls and through training, mis-training, or neglect encourage aggressive behaviours are going to find another big dog and do the same thing. Backyard breeders who breed pitbulls for a tough look, without considering health or temperament, are going to do the same thing with other breeds.

Personally, I'm not a pitbull fan. I like little fluffy dogs and both of my dogs are under 15 pounds. But this idea that banning one specific breed (or mix) of dog is going to change things makes no sense. That guy in Montreal who left his aggressive dog outside alone in a backyard with a broken down fence would have done the exact same thing with a Rottweiler, German Shepard, or whatever other big dog he could find.

[FlamesAddiction]

I have never heard a reasonable argument for why anyone should have the right to own a potentially dangerous animal and one from a breed that is known to attack and kill other humans.

I actually don't care what kind of breed it is, but if there even needs to be statistics for the number of people they attack or kill, they shouldn't be in our towns. What reasonable argument is there, other than maybe to serve at legitimate guard animals, which let's be honest, isn't why most people get them.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I have never heard a reasonable argument for why anyone should have the right to own a potentially dangerous animal and one from a breed that is known to attack and kill other humans.

I actually don't care what kind of breed it is, but if there even needs to be statistics for the number of people they attack or kill, they shouldn't be in our towns. What reasonable argument is there, other than maybe to serve at legitimate guard animals, which let's be honest, isn't why most people get them.

We have our rottweiler for multiple reasons and security is one of them. As I mentioned earlier, if you break into our house, he isn't doing a thing. He will flip on his back and wait for the belly rub as you empty the house. With that said, if you still decide to target my house after knowing there is a large dog there, you must really want something I have (or you are from CP and know you are making it out ok).

We have friends with the rottweilers and they couldn't be bigger baby's. They go running when a 5 lb dog barks at them at the dog park. Again, it all comes down to how they are brought up.

The pitbull you see on a facebook video kissing babies has been brought up in a house where everyone is loved and violence is something the dog has never seen.

The pitbull who is thrown in the backyard anytime someone comes over or is tied to a post half it's life has no idea about right and wrong.

I would agree with the fact that many owners of large or dangerous breeds get them for the wrong reasons. They want the macho dog and have no time, patience or willingness to train it. This is why I go back to my thoughts on a bylaw that does not discriminate against the breed but instead the potential to inflict serious harm.

If your dog is over X lbs, you must take some sort of test where a dog trainer evaluates the ability to interact with humans and other dogs. This test is every year or 2.
If you don't pass, you can retake the test and it can be done with a different trainer just so you don't feel like "trainer 1" had it out for you.
Fail a second time and you must enter training of some sort until the dog can pass the original test. All of this comes at the owner's expense.

Make the first evaluation free... you will offset this cost through the training from second tests or training. Watch ownership from people who buy these dogs for the wrong reason drop when it hits their wallets.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

We have our rottweiler for multiple reasons and security is one of them. As I mentioned earlier, if you break into our house, he isn't doing a thing. He will flip on his back and wait for the belly rub as you empty the house. With that said, if you still decide to target my house after knowing there is a large dog there, you must really want something I have (or you are from CP and know you are making it out ok).

We have friends with the rottweilers and they couldn't be bigger baby's. They go running when a 5 lb dog barks at them at the dog park. Again, it all comes down to how they are brought up.

The pitbull you see on a facebook video kissing babies has been brought up in a house where everyone is loved and violence is something the dog has never seen.

The pitbull who is thrown in the backyard anytime someone comes over or is tied to a post half it's life has no idea about right and wrong.

I would agree with the fact that many owners of large or dangerous breeds get them for the wrong reasons. They want the macho dog and have no time, patience or willingness to train it. This is why I go back to my thoughts on a bylaw that does not discriminate against the breed but instead the potential to inflict serious harm.

If your dog is over X lbs, you must take some sort of test where a dog trainer evaluates the ability to interact with humans and other dogs. This test is every year or 2.
If you don't pass, you can retake the test and it can be done with a different trainer just so you don't feel like "trainer 1" had it out for you.
Fail a second time and you must enter training of some sort until the dog can pass the original test. All of this comes at the owner's expense.

Make the first evaluation free... you will offset this cost through the training from second tests or training. Watch ownership from people who buy these dogs for the wrong reason drop when it hits their wallets.

I can respect that and I also know Rottweilers that are awesome dogs. If I never looked at the statistics, I probably wouldn't have considered them dangerous based on my personal experience and anecdotes.

If it didn't already exist and was accepted as normal, I don't believe that most people would think owning a powerful and potentially dangerous animal in towns, would be a good idea. I wonder what the greater good is. Even one person being killed or severely harmed by another person's pet is one too many IMO.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again...read this. It is not stat "padding" it would be inaccurate identification of what a pitbull is.

If its even somewhat true, the stats you are relying on for your argument, simply aren't what you/they say they are. I guess accuracy and truthfulness doesnt matter to you?

It's not fake news, but it would be a result of sensationalistic reporting, something that occurs all the time.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steff...b_8112394.html

Dogsbite.org has long been considered a horribly inaccurate source of data. Their information gathering methods allow for incredible amounts of bias