It's the owner, not the dog. Again.

[Twisted Canuck]

Time for all the apologists to come on and explain, again, how it is the owner, and not the dog (breed), that is the problem. And while I agree with that philosophy in principle, we do keep seeing the same breed, doing major damage, because it is capable of doing it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...tack-1.3796672

[Redwillow]

There's a few breeds out there that should be banned.

[alacringa]

In principle, I agree with "it's the owner, not the breed." But the 2 separate dogs that have attacked and hurt my dog have both been pit bulls. He is no longer allowed to interact with fighting breeds.

[Rimbilly]

I have a house cat that can do that... better take him away!

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Rimbilly

I have a house cat that can do that... better take him away!

Your house cat can do the damage a pit bull can? Impressive.

[Rio56]

yes enough of this crap .... some cities , provinces , states and even countries have banned this dog type and cousins , for a reason .... Owners , as I've said before have to man up or ship your dog out, for a vet visit of the last kind ... The pet world has gone extreme and reminds me of the tree huggers.. plain and simple

[silverdoctor]

Don't know what to say about that... But would like to see DNA testing made public on every issue with dogs.

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Don't know what to say about that... But would like to see DNA testing made public on every issue with dogs.

no problem .. you as an owner will pay for the DNA testing and make it PUBLIC before taking home some back alley cross breed or full bore pit ..how's that sound ..

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Don't know what to say about that... But would like to see DNA testing made public on every issue with dogs.

On the owners of said dog?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Rio56

no problem .. you as an owner will pay for the DNA testing and make it PUBLIC before taking home some back alley cross breed or full bore pit ..how's that sound ..

You do realize that Montreal stood on the graves of two pitbull attacks to push the ban through? DNA showed that neither of the dogs were pit bull anything? But, that matters not to Joe public.

I would pay for testing yes... Doesn't cost that much.

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

You do realize that Montreal stood on the graves of two pitbull attacks to push the ban through? DNA showed that they were in fact NOT pitbulls?

I would pay for testing yes... Doesn't cost that much.

no more excuses .. DOC .... the pits and cousins are trouble ... get the DNA goin ..all in favour , you may not like the results and the public opinion as to what should be done with these attacking monsters ... ..have you noticed you are becoming the minority ...lmao

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Rio56

no more excuses .. DOC .... the pits and cousins are trouble ... get the DNA goin ..all in favour , you may not like the results and the public opinion as to what should be done with these attacking monsters ... ..have you noticed you are becoming the minority ...lmao

did you just read what I posted? The dogs were not pit bulls, but the "pit bull type".

DNA testing is less than $100. Wow. Big bloody expense there.

[silverdoctor]

And while we're at it Rio, lets ban all guns. No need to have them in society.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Rio56

no more excuses .. DOC .... the pits and cousins are trouble ... get the DNA goin ..all in favour , you may not like the results and the public opinion as to what should be done with these attacking monsters ... ..have you noticed you are becoming the minority ...lmao

I'm sure you have no trouble jumping on the ban pistols and assault style weapons considering public opinion is what it is and damn the research or misinformation that's out there?

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

did you just read what I posted? The dogs were not pit bulls, but the "pit bull type".

DNA testing is less than $100. Wow. Big bloody expense there.

read what I said ... don't get off the hook that easy .. I said cousins .. you know exactly what I'm talking about ... give it up , you're losing on here and your DNA tested dog ..sooner than later ......

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

And while we're at it Rio, lets ban all guns. No need to have them in society.

OHHH nice ... change the subject cause you're lost and defeated ... Pit's and cousins are a threat to the public and owners ...

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Rio56

read what I said ... don't get off the hook that easy .. I said cousins .. you know exactly what I'm talking about ... give it up , you're losing on here and your DNA tested dog ..sooner than later ......

What cousin? One dog in Montreal was a rottie cross? I'd have to look up the other.

So ban anything that looks like a possible pitbull? That's a long list.

Rotties and GSD's would have to be gone just due to stats. Presa Canarios, Canes, so many dogs that look like pitbulls.

We'll end up a society of bichons and yorkies LOL

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

did you just read what I posted? The dogs were not pit bulls, but the "pit bull type".

DNA testing is less than $100. Wow. Big bloody expense there.

How do you DNA test when a "pitbull" is actually not a recognized breed, just a mix?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

How do you DNA test when a "pitbull" is actually not a recognized breed, just a mix?

APBT and Staffordshire is what they test for... Any crosses therein.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

APBT and Staffordshire is what they test for... Any crosses therein.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

We'll end up a society of bichons and yorkies LOL

But sadly true.

It's already happening with people.
Is it the person, or the owner (government)?

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

And while we're at it Rio, lets ban all guns. No need to have them in society.

nice ..take the responsibility and accountability that a gun owner does and all is good ... your PIT or cross breed can run out in the public and kill someone ... does that mean you get charged ... own up to the same and keep your vicious dogs .. I bet you don't ...

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Rio56

nice ..take the responsibility and accountability that a gun owner does and all is good ... your PIT or cross breed can run out in the public and kill someone ... does that mean you get charged ... own up to the same and keep your vicious dogs .. I bet you don't ...

Really... Every firearms owner out there is 100 percent responsible.

I laugh so hard i'll fall out of my chair.

Some people shouldn't own firearms - period. Some people shouldn't own dogs - period. Some people shouldn't have a license to drive a vehicle - period.

Same old tired argument Rio. Lets ban it all and be done with it. More liberal attitude.

[double gun]

Ireland has a "dangerous breed" list - you are welcome to buy/sell/keep the dogs, however if your breed is on the list it also means it needs to be muzzled in public.

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Really... Every firearms owner out there is 100 percent responsible.

I laugh so hard i'll fall out of my chair.

Some people shouldn't own firearms - period. Some people shouldn't own dogs - period. Some people shouldn't have a license to drive a vehicle - period.

Same old tired argument Rio.

there's laws for bad storage and improper gun use ..NEWS alert ..it's called Jail ... you are funny .... make some serious laws for pit's and cousins .. Are you in favour or scared ????? man up big tuff dog owner ...

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Rio56

there's laws for bad storage and improper gun use ..NEWS alert ..it's called Jail ... you are funny .... make some serious laws for pit's and cousins .. Are you in favour or scared ????? man up big tuff dog owner ...

There's also laws to hold dog owners accountable. Jokes on you - I don't own a pitbull, but I love the dogs. nor do I own a firearm. But I fully support ownership of both. I don't have kids either - but by jeesus, there's some kids that should be muzzled in public - that's something I would support.

I don't carry the attitude of banning anything. Same old tired argument all the time.

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

There's also laws to hold dog owners accountable. Jokes on you - I don't own a pitbull, but I love the dogs. nor do I own a firearm. But I fully support ownership of both. I don't have kids either - but by jeesus, there's some kids that should be muzzled in public - that's something I would support.
I don't carry the attitude of banning anything. Same old tired argument all the time.

I will leave this alone as you have spoken .... and explained a lot more than you should of ... nite DOC

[rottie]

A good article by a respected man in the dog world, he knows more than most on this board.Its well worth the read

For whats its worth, I am with Silver on this one






Stanley Coren is a dog expert, author and professor emeritus University of British Columbia
Only four months after the death of a Montreal woman following a brutal dog attack, the city has passed a controversial ban on dogs perceived to be pit bulls or pit bull crosses. Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre has argued that this has been done as a matter of “public safety.”
I suppose that as a scientist I have problems when laws are passed to solve problems without reference to actual facts. It is certainly the case that the likelihood that a dog will bite differs among various dog breeds. This is been confirmed by a number of studies and surveys. For example, if we focus only on the most severe dog bites (those resulting in someone dying), the dogs generally described as pit bulls account for approximately half of these, despite the fact that such dogs only account for 1 to 2 per cent of the total population. However let us look at another important issue, namely: “Is the problem large enough to justify such severe legislation?” In Canada the rate of deaths by dog bite is only 2 to 3 individuals per year, while in the United States the annual count varies between 20 and 30. Looking at the statistics this means that you are seven times more likely to die by being struck by lightning than from a dog attack.

Let me give you another statistic. In Canada the number of people killed while riding bicycles is about 55 each year. That means that you are 18 times more likely to die in a bicycle accident than by dog bite. If the issue were simply one of public safety, you would certainly save a lot more lives by banning bicycles then by banning specific breeds of dogs. Of course the counterargument to such a ban is that bicycles are useful and bike riders have improved health due to the exercise involved. However the same argument could be made for dogs in that they have proven to be useful, and less than three years ago a task force of the American Heart Association released a report which said that ownership of a pet dog was also good for your health. The health benefits come from the fact that people who own dogs have reduced risk of cardiovascular problems, lower stress levels and improved psychological health. It thus appears that the health benefits associated with owning dogs could well offset the very low risk of a dog bite fatality.
Instituting bans on things considered to be dangerous or undesirable is an automatic, virtually knee-jerk response, of governments when there is a particularly distressing occurrence in their jurisdiction. However, once again, it would be nice if people looked at the data. A survey of 26 Canadian municipalities showed that there was no difference in the rate of dog bites between those cities which had breed-specific legislation and those which did not. Furthermore the experiences of places with breed bans has not been favourable. Both the Netherlands and Italy abandoned breed-specific legislation after it was shown that there was no overall reduction in dog bites when the laws were in effect. In the United States, six states which had such legislation have already repealed it. In Canada, both Vancouver and Edmonton have rescinded their breed-specific legislation as unworkable and unhelpful. The obvious question to ask is, “If banning specific dog breeds is a useful solution, why are such laws being revoked in so many places?”
If breed-specific bans are not effective how can we reduce the incidence of dog bites? There is some data which seems to give us an answer. A number of years ago, a survey by the American Association of Animal Hospitals showed that when a dog was put through a basic obedience class the likelihood that such a dog would be involved in a major bite incident was reduced by 89 per cent.
Here in Vancouver, over a period of about three years, I gave a one-hour bite proofing lecture and demonstration to children in the third grade in several primary schools. Young children are the targets of dog bites in nearly 60 per cent of all recorded instances. About a year later we found that the frequency of dog bites in kids who had just had that little bit of instruction had been reduced by almost 80 per cent. Such simple educational interventions seem to lower the risk of dog bite injuries without targeting any specific breed.
Based upon such data, it might be sensible for governments to require that all dogs above a certain size must receive some basic obedience instruction if they are to be allowed outside without a muzzle. If, in addition, the educational system invested the minimal amount of time needed to bite proof children, the problem could be solved. Together, these two initiatives could reduce the probability of dog bite injuries by approximately 95 per cent. Failing such actions, just based upon the statistics, wouldn't public safety be much more improved by banning bicycles rather than specific breeds of dogs?

[fitzy]

That's a great article!



Ban the bike save a life!

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by fitzy

That's a great article!



Ban the bike save a life!

typical extremist .. I said OWN up and shut up ... lets make some laws and you dog owners can take it on the chin ....