This story is taken from my local daily paper.
The one thing about the whole pit bull controversey that stands out to me is this: it seems that either pit bull owners are very responsible, committed or they are ignorant, abusive idiots. I'm pretty ambivalent about the ban, having narrowly averted an attack on my children once so my aversion to the breed is pretty visceral and personal, otoh what I foresee is that another breed will simply be chosen as the default dog for people who derive some kind of weird tough guy status from owning this particular breed. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7e8e9d66-83c7-43bd-bb4a-83be9f63f733

Police lay charges in pit bull attack as Ontario bans breed 17-year-old girl charged with criminal negligence; new law will make province safer, minister says
Neco Cockburn and April Lindgren, with files from Ken Gray The Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa police laid charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm in a dog attack case yesterday, the same day Ontario's government passed North America's most comprehensive pit bull ban into law.
The charges and the new province-wide ban come only five days after three people, including 21/2-year-old Jayden Clairoux, were injured by three pit bull-type dogs in a Pinecrest-area neighbourhood. City officials say the same three dogs attacked two boys in January.
The 17-year-old girl charged with three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Further charges are expected to be laid on Friday against an adult male. For an adult, such a charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Police would not provide the relationship between the man and young woman, or whether the man is the dogs' owner, citing the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Six charges were laid last week against the owner, Shridev Cafe, under the provincial Dog Owners Liability Act. The charges carry up to $30,000 in fines.

Mr. Cafe was fined $2,310 earlier this winter for another incident in which his dogs attacked a four-year-old boy and his 16-year-old stepbrother as they skated on an ice rink near Woodbridge Crescent.
Residents of the Dumaurier Avenue area where the most recent attack occurred say the dogs have been staying in a townhouse there for about a month.

Yesterday in a closed session, Ottawa's corporate services committee unanimously requested that city solicitor Jerry Bellomo ask a judge within a week to issue an order to have the animals killed. Susan Jones, the city's bylaw enforcement director, said the city approached the owner to voluntarily have the dogs put down by the Humane Society and he refused.
The owner showed no inclination to send the dogs to obedience training, Ms. Jones said, and so she asked committee to take action. The city has the power to order a dog muzzled, contained or leashed, but cannot put the animal down, she said. That's why the city must go to court to get the provincial liability act enforced.
Under the province's new law passed yesterday, all pit bulls will now have to be leashed and muzzled in public, and must be spayed or neutered. The new legislation, which is expected to go into effect in late summer or early fall, allows current owners to keep their pit bulls but prohibits them from breeding or acquiring new ones.
In addition, fines will increase for individuals who own dangerous dogs that bite, attack or pose a threat, to a maximum of $10,000 from $5,000. The new law provides for jail sentences of up to six months and allows a judge to order restitution.
 2 3 4 5 6 7 » 27
The owner showed no inclination to send the dogs to obedience training

^^
No surprise there.
What a shame.
What a damn shame.

Handsome Jack Morrison
*gently remove the detonator to reply by e-mail
Mr. Sharansky, ease my doubts:
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Sharansky.htm
The owner showed no inclination to send the dogs to obedience training

^^
No surprise there. What a shame. What a damn shame.

One bizarre aspect to this story is that the guy can go to the humane society after the ten day observation period and claim the dogs back. I don't understand that, something has to change.
I predict a doberman resurgence and yes, it is a damn shame.

LF
One bizarre aspect to this story is that the guy can go to the humane society after the ten day observation period and claim the dogs back. I don't understand that, something has to change.

Nope. Not gonna happen. The city is making an application to the province to have the dogs put down.
Chances are very good it will succeed seeing as how it is the second time (!!) that these dogs have been involved in something like this.

Marcel and Moogli
One bizarre aspect to this story is that the guy ... dogs back. I don't understand that, something has to change.

Nope. Not gonna happen. The city is making an application to the province to have the dogs put down.

Oh! Well that's good news in a sad sort of way.
Chances are very good it will succeed seeing as how it is the second time (!!) that these dogs have been involved in something like this.

Whatta jerk. Twice in something like two months.
LF
see, i don't get why breed plays into it at all. i think it's a very good thing the owner/s are being held accountable. that's what needs to happen ALL the time, and that's what is going to stop the dog bite problem. these dangerous dog laws need to be applied to ALL dogs that bite/attack/whatever, not just the media "darlings".

my best friend is a pit bull.
http://shattering.org
x-no-archive: yes in headers
see, i don't get why breed plays into it at all. i think it's a very good thing the owner/s ... bite problem. these dangerous dog laws need to be applied to ALL dogs that bite/attack/whatever, not just the media "darlings".

Hi Elegy (it's me, Jean, wearing a cloaking device!)

I think the real problem is the damage the dogs tend to do, not the frequency of bites. It's the destruction potential that frightens people. I mean if you look at the stats for bite incidents pits are pretty low. Poodles probably bite more than pits (I guess it'd be more) but they don't rip off the bitee's faces. Add that to the fact that pitbulls so often end up paired with idjits..and you just can't legislate idiocy out of existence.
I realize that responsible dog owners like you are likely the majority but when you have an animal that's very dangerous given the right conditions you have two choices - eliminate those conditions (very, very difficult) or eliminate the animal (fairly simple). That's not a literal thing - no pitbulls currently owned by Ontarians will be destroyed, it's just that nobody will be allowed to bring new pits into the population. No doggie holocaust.

So far as the 'media darlings' thing, I am not sure if all dog attacks other than pitbull attacks get ignored, I'd have no way of knowing that, but it just seems that when a pit does attack another dog or child or even adult, the damage done is pretty spectacular compared to the damage done by the family poodle. This is just Jean Q. Public's impression, so I guess all things considered I'm not against the pitbull ban.
LF
see, i don't get why breed plays into it at ... to ALL dogs that bite/attack/whatever, not just the media "darlings".

Hi Elegy (it's me, Jean, wearing a cloaking device!)

lemony fresh eh? bwahaha.
I think the real problem is the damage the dogs tend to do, not the frequency of bites. It's the ... to the fact that pitbulls so often end up paired with idjits..and you just can't legislate idiocy out of existence.

but any of the large breeds can have a strong bite. and besides, given that most dog bite victims are children, it doesn't take that much strength to do major damage. even a pomeranian is capable of killing a baby.
but yes, pit bulls are often paired with lousy owners. but the problem is still not the pit bulls, it is the lousy owners. so hold the owners responsible, don't just nuke the dogs. or legislate the dogs out of existence. or punish the responsible owners who just happen to like this breed of dog.
I realize that responsible dog owners like you are likely the majority but when you have an animal that's very ... will be destroyed, it's just that nobody will be allowed to bring new pits into the population. No doggie holocaust.

unless you're a pit bull in the shelter. or a pit bull now dumped in the shelter because your owners can't afford the million dollars in insurance. or a pit bull who lives next to hysterical owners who call animal control and accuse you of being menacing.
you're not going to get rid of irresponsible owners by outlawing pit bulls. they will either a) ignore the laws and own pit bulls anyway or b) move on to a different breed. the danger is not from the breed. it is from the irresponsibility and poor ownership.
breed banning is also very difficult and expensive to enforce. what about dogs who have no pit bull in them whatsoever but have this misfortune of being stocky and muscular (boxer x lab comes to mind). this law puts the onus on the owner to prove that their dog is not a pit bull. how is that fair?
why not just enforce already existing leash laws for crying out loud?? that's half the problem right there.
So far as the 'media darlings' thing, I am not sure if all dog attacks other than pitbull attacks get ... poodle. This is just Jean Q. Public's impression, so I guess all things considered I'm not against the pitbull ban.

here's a good site (and good book) that talks about the real statistics behind fatal dog attacks

here's the bite stats for just winnipeg, who outlawed pit bulls in
1990
10 years ago it was dobermans in this seat. before them, rottweilers ibelieve.

my best friend is a pit bull.
http://shattering.org
x-no-archive: yes in headers
Show more