[Illusion]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

It's an interesting subject

If you believe that certain breeds are predisposed to violent behaviour, then I don't know how you could be against licensing and mandatory training to own such a breed.


IMHO banning a breed is useless, just a public relations stunt done by politicians for political reasons. Ontario banned pits, which is silly in the sense that most are not pure bred and defining a pit is near impossible........ Then bring in the issue that a million other fighting dogs are still legal, some of which are arguably more dangerous.
Hell, just look on kijiji and there's all kinds of pressa's for sale....... Neapolitan mastiff, perfectly legal

It's not just pitbulls that were banned.

(a) a pit bull terrier,

(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,

(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,

(d) an American pit bull terrier,

(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); (“pit-bull”)

In 2004, the last full year before the ban, there were 984 licensed pit bulls in the city and 168 reported bites. Last year there were 501 pit bulls registered in Toronto, and just 13 bites. That’s right the number of reported bites went from 168 to 13.

The evidence is in, and it should be enough to muzzle any further attempt to reverse Ontario’s successful pit bull ban. Don’t expect passionate defenders of pit bulls and associated breeds to quit their emotional campaign on behalf of these animals. No amount of data will convince them that pit bulls pose a hazard.

[CrunchyCripple]

(a) is not a breed.

It is (d)

The ban is so vague that if there is a Labrador mixed with something like a boxer or anything remotely boxy-headed, it can(and often does) come out looking like a Pit Bull mix.

It can be taken from you and destroyed. Awesome.
Fucking assholes.

[Illusion]

Oh hi CrunchyCripple!!

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

(a) is not a breed.

It is (d)

The ban is so vague that if there is a Labrador mixed with something like a boxer or anything remotely boxy-headed, it can(and often does) come out looking like a Pit Bull mix.

It can be taken from you and destroyed. Awesome.
Fucking assholes.

Again you dismiss the actual facts and continue to blame others. Not only is the pit bull ban working, all dog related bites resulting in deaths have dropped! So what does that tell you? The ban is basically teaching dog owners of every breed to smarten the fuck up.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by mr black ↗

It's not just pitbulls that were banned.

(a) a pit bull terrier,

(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,

(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,

(d) an American pit bull terrier,

(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); (“pit-bull”)

In 2004, the last full year before the ban, there were 984 licensed pit bulls in the city and 168 reported bites. Last year there were 501 pit bulls registered in Toronto, and just 13 bites. That’s right the number of reported bites went from 168 to 13.

The evidence is in, and it should be enough to muzzle any further attempt to reverse Ontario’s successful pit bull ban. Don’t expect passionate defenders of pit bulls and associated breeds to quit their emotional campaign on behalf of these animals. No amount of data will convince them that pit bulls pose a hazard.

You could be right, I'm pretty ignorant of most of this

I still find it puzzling though that a lot of other breeds are still available that are just as potentially dangerous.

I would have thought that the section if society that wants a big aggressive dog would just move to a different breed

[niknik]

Originally Posted by mr black ↗

Try not to cop bash so much and stay on topic.

Ontario's pit bull ban has been 100 percent effective. Dog bites in general have be on a decline ever since the ban was passed in 2005. From 1982 to 2013, pit bulls or close mixes were responsible for 1,777 maimings, for 64 per cent of all such injuries in Canada and the United States. Fifty-one per cent of dog-related deaths (275) have been attributed to the breed, as have 67 per cent of attacks doing bodily harm (2,990).

Don't get me wrong, Pits should NOT be banned just because of my personal experience. It's because hundreds of people have been killed by a breed that is responsible for a majority of attacks, despite making up a minority of the dog population.

So what you're saying is, pit bulls are the black males between the ages of 17 to 40 in the dog world.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

So what you're saying is, pit bulls are the black males between the ages of 17 to 40 in the dog world.

So what you're saying is, racism.

[Illusion]

No Niknik. I believe it's bad owners who're responsible for the breed's reputation, much like gun ownership.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by mr black ↗

No Niknik. I believe it's bad owners who're responsible for the breed's reputation, much like gun ownership.

It's mostly bad owners. But the dog didn't get it's reputation solely because of bad owners.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

So what you're saying is, racism.

No, it's just a factual observation of the premise minority responsible for majority.