I did answer your question. I said I fully support Ontario’s Dangerous Dog Act and Pit Bull/Pit Bull Type Ban.
I most certainly do not support euthanasia of all pit bulls/pit bull types regardless of their actions or behaviours and neither does Ontario’s pit bull BSL. As I said, I provided the link to our dog laws several times in the past and have grown quite weary of people not reading it. It can be very easily Googled.
The pit bulls/pit bull types that ended up being euthanised here in Ontario because of what they looked like and not because of their behaviour…were abandoned dogs in shelters. The pit bull population had reached a point that there were simply too many unwanted, undesirable and unadoptable, so they were humanely euthanised. Although I felt bad for the pit bulls, I was disgusted by the irresponsible owners that created this problem and I understood and agreed with what our government did to get the pit bull population back under control.
How about the family pet that gets ambushed, relentlessly attacked, slaughtered by pit bull/types? Why no concern for this? Why heap your sympathy onto the breed/type that exhibits this behavior of ambush/attack/slaughter of other–deeply beloved, cherished, and frequently utterly defenseless pets? Not to mention the children, elderly, even able bodied adults permanently disfigured, disabled, killed? Pit bulls have earned their reputation over 20 years with no signs of abating, yet here you are expressing your sole concern over the extremely remote possibility of humane euthanasia. Come on.
The ban absolutely does allow for the removal and potential euthanization of any all dogs that any bylaw officer decides looks like a pit - regardless of the animal’s actual breeding or behaviour.
Not seeing that at all. Perhaps quote the part that states what you allege because from what I read, a vet on the federal board has to sign off on what is considered a pit bull under this legislation.
Ditto. A vet gives the determination in the absence of owner proof of breed. And it is still up to the prosecution to prove the breed in court. (that’s what I read)
And include the part that I called the Dangerous Dog Act…which in fact the title heading is All Dangerous Dogs.
[h=2]All Dangerous Dogs[/h]
The amendments to DOLA contained in the Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005 came into effect on August 29, 2005.
For court proceedings taking place after August 29, 2005, regarding events that took place before that date, the law will apply as it existed before August 29, 2005.
Expanded Part IX Proceedings: It is now possible to commence Part IX proceedings where it is alleged that:
[LIST]
A dog has bitten or attacked
The dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals
An owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent a dog from biting or attacking or posing a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals
An existing order has been breached.
Part IX Orders: In Part IX proceedings arising after August 29, 2005, the existing legislation and amendments will provide that if a court finds that a dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal or that the dog's behaviour constitutes a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, the court may make the following orders if satisfied that they are necessary for protection of the public:
Destruction order
Order that dog owner take specified control measures
Order prohibiting further dog ownership for a specified period of time.
Control Measures: The existing legislation and amendments provide some examples of the sort of Part IX orders that the courts may make in cases arising after August 29, 2005.
Examples include:
Confinement of dog to owner's property
Restraint of dog by leash and/or muzzle
Posting of warning signs.
Mandatory Sterilization: Any dog subject to a Part IX Order (other than a destruction order) must be spayed or neutered within 30 days of the order or within a different period of time, if the court specifies one.
Expanded Offence Proceedings: It is an offence to contravene any provision of the DOLA or the regulations or any order made under the DOLA or regulations.
Specific offences will include:
Failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent a dog from biting or attacking a person or domestic animal.
Failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent a dog from behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals.
Penalties for Offences: Penalties in DOLA offence proceedings will be as follows:
$10,000 fine ($60,000 for corporations); and/or
Six months imprisonment; and/or
In addition to any other penalties, the court will be able to make restitution orders requiring convicted persons to make compensation or restitution to victims.
[/LIST]
And no, by law officers do and will not remove any dog from any house just because it looks like a pit bull regardless of their behaviour.
[h=2]New Powers for Animal Control Personnel[/h]
The amendments to DOLA provide that police officers, special constables, First Nations Constables, auxiliary police, municipal law enforcement officers, OSPCA inspectors and OSPCA agents are all designated as peace officers for the purposes of DOLA.
Designated peace officers will be able to obtain warrants to seize a dog from a particular location where it is not desirable in the interests of public safety that the dog be so located.
In exigent circumstances, designated peace officers will have a right of entry without warrant. Exigent circumstances include circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry without warrant is necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm or death to any person or domestic animal.
There are also provisions for seizure in public places.
Don’t pout. You asked people if they would like to kill all pit bulls. When you blow up a debate with that sort of calculating exageration, it’s just an eensy bit unconvincing when you object to my using actual events to make an emotional argument.
BSL is based on actions – the violent actions of various extreme individuals, and the lack of similar action in others. People noticed that these violent individuals all shared certain physical traits, and that resulted in breed-specific laws in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century.
Pit bulls are dying by the millions not because of mean BSL laws but because there are just too many of them. Every single time I walk into my county shelter, which is an open-intake shelter, 99% of the dogs looking out of the kennels are pit bulls. Every time I walk into a local private shelter whose animals come mainly from southern transports, at least 80% of the dogs are pit bulls. This is NEW. In 1997, they were barely a blip in the shelter system except in urban areas. When I walked into a suburban NJ shelter in 1984 to adopt my first dog, there were ZERO pit bulls inside. The population explosion is new and it is fixable. It is not inevitable that pit bulls are so widely bred and sold that they are 99% of every open shelter and at least 80% of every single shelter in the US.
In case my meaning is not clear, the crusade to end BSL is entirely about the rights and convenience of the owners. The animals themselves would be infinitely better off if there were controls placed on their owners. So stop whimpering about a handful of pit bulls abandoned in the wake of BSL, and start focusing on the real problem - the millions of pit bulls abandoned routinely just because there are so many of them.
The first is not a “study” it’s a journalist with a very clear POV about pit bulls - he’s written multiple stories about the cruel injustices faced by pibbles - and an intern taking a stab at yet again finding something that proves Pomeranians bite more. I did think Mr. Maher’s choice of stars of one article, a man whose Presa mauled a Chihuahua to death, was interesting. The dead Chi was beside the point - the tragedy was that the police who went responded to the attack seized not the guilty Presa but - HIS INNOCENT PIT BULL!!! Compared to this guy, the openly biased Dogsbite is a paragon of fairness.
Of course you think this is an awesome response - it downplays the seriousness of aggressive behavior in dogs, and it gives the owners a pass.
“In Boulder, animal-control officers can ticket the owner of a dog that behaves in an overtly threatening manner; in Denver, a dog must cause injury before an owner can be cited. But more tickets aren’t the goal of Boulder’s program. In fact, in many circumstances, an animal-control officer will agree to drop the citation if the owner agrees to have the dog evaluated by Humane Society training personnel. The trainer and the owner then discuss the dog’s history and past behavior.”
I wonder, do these agencies live in the real world? Because where I’m from, the people who end up dealing with government agencies on a frequent basis have a PhD in “discussion” because they’re well aware it means zero meaningful consequences.
I’m not sure what the pit bull advocates expected to happen to the large numbers of abandoned pit bulls sitting in shelters.
I’m also curious as to whether any of the pit bull advocates make regular donations to the shelters that are currently bulging at the seams with abandoned pit bulls/pit bull types.
I would like to know what each pit bull advocate on this forum is currently and actively doing to help all of those unwanted pit bulls. Are you standing behind what you are saying or do you just want to be heard?
From above “dogs considered a menace”. Different persons determine “menace” in different ways even to consider any off-leash dog being a menace even if I’s minding its business or being friendly.
But most by-law officers can tell when someone is over reacting. That being said, if a person truly feels unease or fear because of an unleashed dog being around them in a public place…that is considered a menace by all accounts of the law.
If I’m sitting in a park and a dog approaches me, friendly or not…that is being a menace. If I’m walking by a house and a dog comes running out either barking at me in a protective manner or jumping on me and trying to lick me to death, that is unwanted behaviour and considered a menace according to the law. When an off leash dog approaches small children in a friendly manner and that child may not be socialized with dogs and grabs the dog’s tail or ears and the dog snaps at the child, that is a menace and also considered a bite/attack.
I understand that many off leash dogs are basically friendly, but most owners of off leash dogs do not have 100% recall and they can in no way, shape or form predict what will happen or how their dog will react when they approach another dog or a person.
Maybe owners of well behaved family pets were influenced by the problems caused by other pit bulls and voluntarily abandoned/ surrendered them to the pound and other rescues.
I do know that quite a few pit bull/pit bull type owners that were subconsciously/secretly afraid of their dogs, noticed repetative personality quirks/behaviour or had trouble controlling them at times, did relinquish them to animal control or rescues. Some people that had kids also got rid of their dogs before the baby was born.
I have no memory of anyone directly telling me to what extent they go to help all of the unwanted pit bulls.
I’m not talking about adopting or fostering a few pit bulls, helping a few of them isn’t even putting a dent in the overpopulated pounds and rescues. I’m talking about helping the masses of unwanted pit bulls in their area.
RIP Mr Herrera, that is shocking news and I really hope that the dogs owners are charged.
Canadian Trotter,
I’ve quoted your post not because I don’t think that any dog that is out of control/hurts people shouldn’t be dealt with but because my belief and experience shows that BSL just doesn’t work. You can ban the ‘problem breed du jour’, in this case pit bulls but the real problem is with people who do not contain, confine and train their dogs - if pits are banned they will just move onto another breed and let that dog run riot too. Pit Bulls are not a breed that I have any experience with, they have been banned for 30 years in both countries I’ve lived in so I can’t comment on their traits. However, despite this BSL there has been no reduction in dog attacks, in reality attacks have increased year on year.
The problem has two legs not four. While we blame certain breeds of dogs there will be no resolution until BSL covers every type of canine. When there is an attack or even just wandering dogs that are not an overt threat, look to who is responsible for this, it’s not the dog. Where do you stop with BSL?
I’m curious as to which countries you speak of that have pit bull BSL’s that haven’t worked and why they haven’t worked. Are you saying that the specific pit bull attacks haven’t decreased and have in fact increased?
The pit bull BSL in Ontario was very strictly enforced and adhered to, it wasn’t just some silly nilly law that was soon forgotten. Because of this there was no possible way that the BSL couldn’t achieve what it had set out to do from day one. Pit bull bites, attacks and deaths are down considerably and pit bull overpopulation was lowered and indiscriminate breeding was stopped in its tracks. Yes, there are still some unsavoury owners that get under the radar of the law but not enough to ever let the pit bull problem ever go back to what it once was.
I agree that irresponsible owners will just move onto the next choice of aggressive dog, this was done before the pit bull was in that limelight. The difference being that the dogs chosen before the pit bulls did not create or cause so many bites, attacks and deaths in society as the pit bull did and still does. Nor did these other dog breeds get over bred and overpopulated to the extent the pit bull did/does. If the same thing were to happen with other aggressive dog breeds I would like to see BSLs put into place for them as well, although I sincerely doubt that it will because other breeds do not have that “instant killer instinct” that was so sought after from the pit bull. If shepherds, rotties, dobermans, huskies, labs, etc…, were causing the large number of bites, attacks, maulings and deaths that the pit bull is, I would love to see a BSL put onto them as well.
Although the problem is with owners, the issue of the problem is the breed type the owners choose. I don’t dislike the pit bull…I dislike the people that have done this to them and continue to use, abuse, neglect and abandon them. I see a problem that has gotten so far out of hand that nothing except for extreme measures is going to fix it.
I have always believed that all dog owners need to be taken to task and held responsible for all dog breeds across the board. I have called animal control twice on wandering dogs and their irresponsible owners and I will continue to do so when the need presents itself. Funnily enough I was slapped down by a few dog owners on here for what I did because they have lost control of their dogs or do not believe in having their dogs under proper control/containment 100% of the time. There are no excuses for, “my dog got out the door, my dog got out of the yard, my dog took off on me and I couldn’t get them to come back, my dog won’t bite he only wants to play!”
