Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck
How many hair splitting statistical arguments by apologists will it take to change the genetically bred predisposition of various similar breeds so that they stop viciously killing humans? Never mind. It's the owner, not the dog. I get it.
At least the little girl wasn't killed, too bad the owner was killed by her own dog.
|
Do you want evidence based policy making in this country or not? Or should that standard only apply to certain things? If asking for evidenced based policy makes one an apologist, I'd be glad to wear that label.
Instead of targeting a specific group of animals that are lumped together based on mostly physical characteristics, why are people not asking for laws and education that address the root causes of aggression and poor ownership practices? The Toronto Humane Society cited Calgary's method of focusing on training and accountability for owners and placing information about dog safety into the public's hands as the model to emulate; in that same paper, the THS said that the legislation seemed to have no effect on the number of serious dog bites.
Which years data should we base a ban on the breeds that fall under the pit bull category? We'll need to exclude years when labs, german shepards and huskies had more bite incidents though. Same goes for the years when breeds classed as working dogs "pit bull's don't fall into this category) had more bite incidents. I'm also sure that the CMVA's position on this type of legislation is based purely based on their long standing record of being pit bull apologists, the same goes for the various humane societies in Canada
For the record, I don't own any of the breeds classed as pit bulls.