Judges order Belfast dog put down.

[Knalus]

The problem isn't how mean or not mean the breed is. The problem is what the dog can do if it gets mean.

Pit bulls and Staffordshire Terriers are built to be dangerous. Not built to be mean, built to be dangerous. Seriously dangerous. Chihuahuas are often meaner in temperament, but the consequences are significantly less.

That's why the breed should be banned. Not because some owners are bad and some are good, not because the breed can be a bunch of puppy dogs and the best friends ever. It's because of the consequences if they ever do get angry. For the same reasons that hand guns are banned but bb guns are not.

I agree with banning the breed. But in taking away someone's dog, there should be a third party looking into the necessity (ie. not up to one police officer), mandatory spaying and neutering regardless, and any compensation should be significant. But we should still ban the breed.

[zamler]

I can say from personal experience that a dogs upbringing, training, and care are NOT enough to prevent certain breeds from spontaneously attacking. And it's a matter of physiology, some dog breeds are simply more capable of inflicting serious harm or death than others. There is no getting around this.

[GGG]

I don't like the breed ban but I do think if your dog attacks someone you should be criminally charged with that action. So if your dog bites someone you get charged with assualt because the owner is responsible for that dogs behaviour. If your dog kills someone you would be charged with manslaughter.

This puts all of the onus on the owner to ensure that their dog is well trained and safe for others to be around.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't like the breed ban but I do think if your dog attacks someone you should be criminally charged with that action. So if your dog bites someone you get charged with assualt because the owner is responsible for that dogs behaviour. If your dog kills someone you would be charged with manslaughter.

This puts all of the onus on the owner to ensure that their dog is well trained and safe for others to be around.

I get where you're coming from, but criminally punishing an owner for the behaviour/actions of an animal is a pretty major violation of our s. 7 Charter rights.

They can already be held liable civilly for damages, I think that's a sufficient penalty and deterrent.

[The Big Chill]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The problem isn't how mean or not mean the breed is. The problem is what the dog can do if it gets mean.

Pit bulls and Staffordshire Terriers are built to be dangerous. Not built to be mean, built to be dangerous. Seriously dangerous. Chihuahuas are often meaner in temperament, but the consequences are significantly less.

That's why the breed should be banned. Not because some owners are bad and some are good, not because the breed can be a bunch of puppy dogs and the best friends ever. It's because of the consequences if they ever do get angry. For the same reasons that hand guns are banned but bb guns are not.

I agree with banning the breed. But in taking away someone's dog, there should be a third party looking into the necessity (ie. not up to one police officer), mandatory spaying and neutering regardless, and any compensation should be significant. But we should still ban the breed.

Then wouldn't you have to ban other breeds of dog that are similarly as dangerous such as German Shepards and/or Rottweilers? Some studies show that those two types of dog breeds actually have stronger bite forces then the pit bull breeds.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by VO #23

I get where you're coming from, but criminally punishing an owner for the behaviour/actions of an animal is a pretty major violation of our s. 7 Charter rights.

They can already be held liable civilly for damages, I think that's a sufficient penalty and deterrent.

But from the victim side a person was assulted, it wasn't an accident, someone should be criminally responsible. It is saying that the owner is responsible for the animals actions. If an owner allows a dog to kill somone in my opinion that is a criminal act. Accidental but definately negligent.

Under the law I believe parents are held repsonsible for their children under 12 actions although this is rarely enforced.

[Coys1882]

I read meters for Enmax for eight years - I never once met a pitbull that tried to kill me. American Eskimos and Labs were the worst but for the most part the breed of the dog didn't goddamn matter.
You know what makes dogs go crazy and bite people? It's the 3 foot length of rope you've used to tie your dog to the chassis of that stripped down truck in your back yard for three straight years. Or maybe it's the 4x4 chain link pen you keep him in day after day while you work with barely enough water. Or maybe it's the fact that you never run the piss out of him so he's healthy and happy. Pair all that with the fact you only bought the dog as a status symbol because nothing looks cooler in your jacked up truck cruising through Penbrook than a 90lb dog with a spikey collar.

Oops- got a little carried away there. Sorry.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by The Big Chill

Then wouldn't you have to ban other breeds of dog that are similarly as dangerous such as German Shepards and/or Rottweilers? Some studies show that those two types of dog breeds actually have stronger bite forces then the pit bull breeds.

Well, lets just ban all breeds that have fatally attacked a human being. According to the link jar_e provided us we know for certain we can add the following dogs besides pitbulls to the list:
Chow Chow
Rottweiler
Akita
Bullmastiff
Briard
Malamute
Husky
Mastiff
Old English Sheep Dog
Great Dane
Border Collie
Doberman
German Shepherd
Great Pyrenees
Collie
Bulldog
Airedale
Saint Bernard
Boxer
Weimaraner
Labrador Retriever
Golden Retriever
Dachshund
Chihuahua
Pomeranian
Beagle

Might as well just ban dogs.

[stampsx2]

It's not the dog so much as the owners that are the problem. Too often dogs are bread to be vicious then accidentially get out into the public. I agree with any law that protects people especially small kids from being bit.

Owners need to be held liable not just with a slap on the wrist. Up until then i don't have a problem with this law.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It is the owners of dogs that make them vicious.

Actually, it was the process of removing puppies from the litter and only letting survive those puppies that rejected humans that made breeds dangerous, along with several other breeder tricks. For many generations people messed around with litters and studs to develop fighting dogs. For people today to claim it is the owner, and not the breed, is being dishonest.

The nature vs nurture debate is fine, but to claim that it is NOT the breed is simply untrue. Man has worked very hard to create the pitbull, a very successful breed if you measure success by aggression, power and how brave the creature is. Any dog can be dangerous, even a well behaved one. But in the same way we technically ban automatic weapons we too should ban the more dangerous breeds.

Many dogs of course can be great (even with bad owners), but they are still dogs and we have a duty to keep our streets safe. I would fully support a 'bad breed ban' in Calgary or at the least a muzzle law. It is usually way too late when a dog owner realizes their dog bites and far too often it is a bad breed.

[Sr. Mints]

I would be in favour of a ban on pugs, with a grandfather clause, of course. Mine bit me at the vet once, and holy crap did those tiny little jagged teeth go deep!

Seriously, there are two pit bulls at the dog park I go to, and they can get rough when playing and people are generally nervous around them, but they are the most well-trained dogs I've ever seen. 600 metres away, if the owner calls them, they stop everything and run to him. I've seen the dogs lay still for 30 minutes when told to stay next to the playground--they just chill out on the grass and watch dogs run by them.

I once commented to the guy that they were incredibly well-trained, and he said "they have to me." He was definitely not your stereotypical bully breed owner.

[dissentowner]

So the monsters in NI got there way and Lennox was destroyed.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ndle-lit-vigil

[EverfresH15]

That story is a real piss off. I dont understand why they didnt just relocate it?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by EverfresH15

That story is a real piss off. I dont understand why they didnt just relocate it?

A woman who does a show on Animal Planet offered to bring the dog to the U.S. and she would pay all the costs to do so and she was denied. The family was denied the chance to see the dog to say goodbye and were also denied the remains. It is heartbreaking for the family, especially the disabled girl who's best friend was that dog.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

A woman who does a show on Animal Planet offered to bring the dog to the U.S. and she would pay all the costs to do so and she was denied. The family was denied the chance to see the dog to say goodbye and were also denied the remains. It is heartbreaking for the family, especially the disabled girl who's best friend was that dog.

This I just can't understand at all.

The dog didn't do anything wrong besides look like an allegedly "dangerous" dog breed (which is complete BS). A professional assessed the dog and said it's perfectly gentle and well trained. Someone offers the perfect solution to the problem - take the dog out of the area the law applies with all finances paid - and they deny her? Then to completely shut the family out even though there is nothing to gain by doing so.

Those are some piss poor politicians who should be nowhere near any decision making process.

[MickMcGeough]

If the Calgary police came and took my dog on the basis that it subjectively resembled an unrelated breed which is dangerous I'd probably do something that would end up with me being an actual criminal.