Gathering of people and their dogs August 28th at 8pm at Point Pleasant Park

3 views
Skip to first unread message

dogk...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 18, 2005, 8:27:19 PM8/18/05
to
As some of you may know August 29th marks the implementation date of
Bill 132 in Ontario - when the pit bull ban comes into effect and when
dogs will start dying in Ontario. On the evening of August 28th there
are going to be groups of people and their dogs gathering across Canada
in Candle light vigils to pay homage to and listen to short speeches
and think about all the dogs who are going to be very needlessly dying
in the next little while and for the foreseeable future because of bill
132.

We're going to be having a vigil here in Halifax down at Point
Pleasant Park at 8pm on August 28th - up the road from the Shakespeare
by the Sea offices at the Gazebo. The parking lot closes at 9:30 so it
won't be a long drawn out affair - but it's really important that
people show up to show that there are people all across Canada who
understand and know about the holocaust that's going to be happening in
Ontario and that it's not going to be happening unnoticed by the rest
of the country.

We want to light candles and/or glow-sticks (depending on whether
there's a fire ban on at the time!) to signify that breed specific
legislation has lit up Ontario to the world - everyone is watching
them right now - and not for the right reasons.

There will be literature available about travel advisories and
travelling to that province with your dog - as well as other
educational materials about BSL. Breed specific legislation isn't
just about pit bulls - it's about ALL dogs - it really is about YOUR
dog. Come on Sunday August 28th at 8pm and find out why. And light a
candle for your dog and all the dogs who's lives are very soon going to
be snuffed out needlessly.

I uploaded a copy of the poster for the event at
http://users.eastlink.ca/~joansinden/halifax_dog_vigil.pdf if you'd
like to check it out and/or print it out and put it up in places where
people will see it to come to the event!

Thanks!

Joan
--
--
http://dogkisser.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/charlieloveshalifax/index.html
http://www.cafepress.com/dogkisser

Wonkey

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 7:51:37 AM8/19/05
to
Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too. How many
children have to be killed by these dogs before people like you start
to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a total moron to
compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its like saying Jews
are dogs.

I'm sure that a few people will show up to your event (insecure people
who need a dog like that to feel cool) but just remember the vast
majority of people would support such a ban here.

Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:23:11 AM8/19/05
to
Wonkey wrote:

Actually, the polls don't disagree with you, here or in Ontario. It is
a few people who have no idea about dogs that are pushing for this and
politicians replying with a typical uninformed knee-jerk reaction.
While the media jumps on events that involve pit bulls most attacks do
not involve them. Also, it is not about the dog, any dog can be bad, it
is about the owner. Even the veterinary associations are against breed
specific bans - but it is a way for politicians to make it look like
they are doing something, when in fact they are not. What is needed is
more rigid enforcement of animal control by-laws and convictions of
owners who do not properly train and care for their dogs (or any
animal). There are no bad dogs, just bad owners. Better to round the
bad owners up and put them to sleep, it would have more of an impact.

--
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
255 Melrose Crescent Eastern Passage NS Canada B3G 1P7
Ph: (902)479-2254 Cell: (902)830-2254 Fax: (902)431-0374
Email: t...@eastlink.ca


Wonkey

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:36:54 AM8/19/05
to
I'll let a very simple statistic cut through your misinformation

Sorry I can't find some Canadian stats but I'm sure it's very similar,

67% of dog-related fatalities in the U.S. have been caused by the pit
bull terrier, a breed that accounts for only 1% of the U.S. dog
population.
from the The Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges web
site.

I guess it seems that all the bad owners are getting pitbulls? Maybe
your right, lets get rid of all the pitbull owners, whatever works.

Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:47:17 AM8/19/05
to
Wonkey wrote:

I did not say fatalities, I said attacks. And yes, bad owners do seek
out specific breeds of dogs. Go check out the drug dealers / young
'hoods' hanging around the city and see what dogs they have walking with
the, many unleashed and untrained except to fight - mostly pit bulls /
Am Staffs.

John van Gurp

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 9:05:35 AM8/19/05
to

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW wrote:

> Wonkey wrote:
>
> >Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too. How many
> >children have to be killed by these dogs before people like you start
> >to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a total moron to
> >compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its like saying Jews
> >are dogs.
> >
> >I'm sure that a few people will show up to your event (insecure people
> >who need a dog like that to feel cool) but just remember the vast
> >majority of people would support such a ban here.
> >
> >
> >
> Actually, the polls don't disagree with you, here or in Ontario. It is
> a few people who have no idea about dogs that are pushing for this and
> politicians replying with a typical uninformed knee-jerk reaction.
> While the media jumps on events that involve pit bulls most attacks do
> not involve them. Also, it is not about the dog, any dog can be bad, it
> is about the owner. Even the veterinary associations are against breed
> specific bans - but it is a way for politicians to make it look like
> they are doing something, when in fact they are not. What is needed is
> more rigid enforcement of animal control by-laws and convictions of
> owners who do not properly train and care for their dogs (or any
> animal). There are no bad dogs, just bad owners. Better to round the
> bad owners up and put them to sleep, it would have more of an impact.
>
> --

Sure Ian, but the various breeds are hard-wired for certain behaviours and
characteristics. Some of that can be overcome by training and behaviour
modification, but it's still part of the dog's make-up.

For example, a retriever will always focus on a thrown ball or stick. They
can't help it. My Scottie however is very easily distracted when playing
with a ball. She's tends to retrieve once or twice and then go about
sniffing the ground for varmints.

A border collie will always watch every move of its owner and will always
want to herd things. They can't help it. Do whatever training you want but
it will always want to do field work.

The various 'pit bull' breeds were bred for generations to be fighting
dogs with enormous jaw strength, a very high threshold for pain, and
unflagging determination in attacking other animals.

Properly socialized, it will be a loyal and gentle animal, HOWEVER many of
them appear to be owned by people uninterested in and ignorant of proper
socialization approaches, and as a result kids are ripped to shreds and
other dogs are killed and people are generally afraid to be near these
beasties.

You say that most dog attacks do not involve these terriers, and that
makes a lot of sense, it's a statement of obvious fact, given that there
are so many other breeds. The thing is, most other dog attacks don't play
out quite so poorly as pit bull attacks.

As far as better animal control activities; it's much more effective and
efficient to enact legislation banning the breeding or importation of the
breed. Also, Bill 132 is all about greater powers for enforcemnent of
animal safety legislation.

Cheers,
John

ali & ken briggs

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 12:50:04 PM8/19/05
to
I'll be there with my pitbull!

<dogk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124411239....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Wonkey

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 12:52:32 PM8/19/05
to
Bring your kids too, maybe we can watch them get eaten!

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

jimd...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 2:31:47 PM8/19/05
to
Pit Bulls and Rottweilers should be banned from Canada. Period. If you
are a dog lover, and I AM, then buy another dog. It is that simple.
Furthermore, I think showing up at your rally with your non-pitbull
dog, is akin to showing up at an NRA rally with a pocketknife.

Personally, I think all dog OWNERS should be licensed that they
understand how to raise and care for a dog. Just the mere possibility
that a dog could be trained for violence dictates a license for the dog
AND the owner - just like other things that could be used as a weapon
intentionally or otherwise - automobiles and guns come to mind).

When the life or disfigurement of my children are at stake - you will
gain no ground with your ridiculous rally antics.

Donna Whitman

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 5:47:37 PM8/19/05
to


Pit bulls already owned within Ontario are protected so long as they
are kept under proper care and control. There are more restrictions on
them but they're not going to be put down if the owners follow the
more restrictive rules. No one will be able to purchase, import or
breed them from now on and they WILL be seized if illegally acquired
or not controlled.

Personally, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own a dog like a
pit bull of a Presa Canario ( the kind of dog whose attack on a lady
in the hallway or an apartment building led to a well publicized court
case). If they have kids around an animal like that, they need their
head examined.

There was a recent case in the U.S. where a woman went out leaving her
son shut in the basement because the pit bull was "nasty". She was
probably scared to try and get the dog in the basement. Anyway, the
kid snuck out and the dog mauled him to death. The mother actually
unbelievably said "It must have been his time to go". Too bad it was
the kid and not her.

Jim Iron

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 5:55:03 PM8/19/05
to

"Wonkey" <Jac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124452297.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too.

Agreed 100%


Jim Iron

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 5:55:36 PM8/19/05
to
Great. I'll bring a little 'snack' for them.

"ali & ken briggs" <ken.b...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:05oNe.77219$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...

Jim Iron

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 5:56:31 PM8/19/05
to
When can we get "Bill 132" here?

<dogk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124411239....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Jim Iron

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 6:51:12 PM8/19/05
to
Well put. Excellent post.


ali & ken briggs

unread,
Aug 20, 2005, 7:20:27 AM8/20/05
to
Wow-- only two, shocking.
Watch out for those fish hooks..


"ali & ken briggs" <ken.b...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:05oNe.77219$Ph4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...

ali & ken briggs

unread,
Aug 20, 2005, 7:30:06 AM8/20/05
to

Well said John. As an am staff owner (shock and horror-- I know I know) I
think its wonderful to see more controls be put into place to protect not
only people, but the dogs that end up in the hands of poor owners.

If people could ever grasp that no children should be left alone with a
large animal.... then we would be all set.

I don't disagree with that part of it all, I just can't help but wonder...
pitties now, what next?

ali & ken briggs

unread,
Aug 20, 2005, 7:31:57 AM8/20/05
to

>
> Personally, I think all dog OWNERS should be licensed that they
> understand how to raise and care for a dog. Just the mere possibility
> that a dog could be trained for violence dictates a license for the dog
> AND the owner - just like other things that could be used as a weapon
> intentionally or otherwise - automobiles and guns come to mind).
>

I totally agree. Lets start with parents first though.


Rufus Leaking

unread,
Aug 20, 2005, 8:17:54 AM8/20/05
to
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:47:37 GMT, Donna Whitman <NSBoo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 19 Aug 2005 04:51:37 -0700, "Wonkey" <Jac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too. How many
>>children have to be killed by these dogs before people like you start
>>to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a total moron to
>>compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its like saying Jews
>>are dogs.

Good (and important) clarification Donna. There's been some hysteria
that the Act will cause great numbers of the dogs to be rounded up and
killed, and that is not the intent at all.

Cheers,
John

Ann Onimous

unread,
Aug 20, 2005, 10:49:44 AM8/20/05
to

Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?

<http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>

Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.

--
Ann Onimous
ann.o...@gmail.com

Donna Whitman

unread,
Aug 20, 2005, 11:30:29 AM8/20/05
to
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:17:54 GMT, Rufus Leaking <age...@newsadmin.org>
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:47:37 GMT, Donna Whitman <NSBoo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 19 Aug 2005 04:51:37 -0700, "Wonkey" <Jac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here too. How many
>>>children have to be killed by these dogs before people like you start
>>>to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a total moron to
>>>compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its like saying Jews
>>>are dogs.
>
>Good (and important) clarification Donna. There's been some hysteria
>that the Act will cause great numbers of the dogs to be rounded up and
>killed, and that is not the intent at all.
>
>Cheers,
>John

Except that I didn't say that. Wonkey did.

Donna Whitman

unread,
Aug 20, 2005, 11:32:27 AM8/20/05
to
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:49:44 GMT, Ann Onimous <ann.o...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
>
><http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
>
>Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.

I certainly hope so.

Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW

unread,
Aug 20, 2005, 2:12:46 PM8/20/05
to
Ann Onimous wrote:

>Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
>
><http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
>
>Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.
>
>
>

Yup, and they dog needs to be protected from the obvious neglectful
owner, just as the article states.

--

Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW

G. Wayne Hines

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 6:15:20 AM8/21/05
to
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:49:44 GMT, Ann Onimous <ann.o...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>


>Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
>
><http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
>
>Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.

There was an interesting quote in that article:

“We’re animal lovers and we feel bad for this dog. If the end result
is the dog is put down, we feel bad,” she said. “Ultimately, it’s not
the dog’s fault; it’s the owner’s.”

gwh

Donna Whitman

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 6:53:30 AM8/21/05
to

An awful lot of sympathy for the dogs and NONE for the people
they've killed or disfigured for life.

dogk...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 11:07:04 AM8/21/05
to
Sorry for the length of this post - I hope you read to the end!

I am so glad that you've all been discussing this topic! Let me tell
you what I think about some of what you've been talking about.

Wonkey said: "Hopefully we can start putting down pitbulls soon here


too. How many children have to be killed by these dogs before people
like you start to realize how dangerous they are. You have to be a
total moron to compare putting down pitbulls to the holocaust! Its
like saying Jews are dogs."

My name is Joan - does that mean that nobody before of after me can be
called "Joan"? If you go to Dictionary.com you'll see that is defined
as "a massive slaughter" or " sacrificial offering that is consumed
entirely by flames." It's a hebrew biblical term that was not created
for the attempted annihilation of the Jews by Hitler. And I think it's
an entirely approperiate use of the term. I may be a total moron, but
not because of the way I use my vocabulary or choose my words.

Wonkey said: "Bring your kids too, maybe we can watch them get eaten!
"

I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
a headache - but if parents choose to bring their children with them it
will give us dog-owners an opportunity to show them how to properly act
around dogs and how to approach a dog so that those children won't
become a statistic and any time they are around dogs in the future
their interactions will be loving and fun because they've been shown
how to give love to rather than torment and scare dogs.

Jimdo said: Pit Bulls and Rottweilers should be banned from Canada.


Period. If you are a dog lover, and I AM, then buy another dog. It is
that simple. Furthermore, I think showing up at your rally with your
non-pitbull
dog, is akin to showing up at an NRA rally with a pocketknife."

I LOVE this statement. Let me tell you why I got into the fight
against breed specific legislation - because I own 2 pocket knives and
a rottie mix - and I got the rottie mix AFTER I started fighting
against BSL and I intially was only going to foster the rottie mix, not
adopt her. I believe that fighting against BSL is about respect for
ALL dogs - different breeds of dog are as different as different races
of humans - as different as Chinese, Japanese, Nepalese, German, French
and YOU are. To say anything else is simply untrue. And I believe
that God is the one who decided who should be on this earth and he's
the one who decides who leaves this earth - not the legislators and
elected officals. And because all dogs are the same breed specific
legislation is being disprespectful to MY dog because they are saying
that a type of dog isn't worthy of being on this earth - a type of dog
that really IS just like my dog - so they're saying that DOGS aren't
worthy of being on this earth and that's just not right. Dogs are my
chosen life time companion - so I'm going to fight to keep them because
they may decide that the look of the dog that I own is next. And I
don't believe that the analogy of dogs as pocket knives and guns is
correct - I believe that dogs are like delicate flowers - they wilt
very quickly when they don't have any sunshine or love - but when given
lots of love, gentle care, love, fresh air and good food - they'll
blossom and be the most beautiful creatures you can ever imagine.

Ann said: "Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to
protect? - http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2 - "

We are very lucky here in the HRM in that we already have in place the
kind of legislation that people opposed to BSL are fighting to try and
get. We have "dangerous dog legislation" - which doesn't refer to any
breed in particular - it just deals with a dog who has proven itself to
be aggressive and owners who have proven themselves to be negligent.
This story is a perefect case in point. #1 I'm going to say that the
dog is in fact a pit bull - the lady in the story SAYS it was a pit
bull, but a majority of the cases it turns out not to be - so it may
have been a lab mix, or a hound mix, or a rhodesian ridgeback - it
could've been any number of a mix of dogs and the person doing the
running will call it a "pit bull". So I'm not going to comment on that
part. But this dog has bitten before - so ANimal Control has a history
on this dog - so that dog has already probably already been seized and
been taken away because the owner has shown himself to be negligent -
the dog was running at large and wasn't contained - so that dog will
never see his owner again. He will be in Animal Control for 72 hours
and will be assessed - if he's determined to be truly aggressive he'll
be killed right there. If not then he'll be turned over to the SPCA
where he'll go through more temperament tests - and I know the lady who
does the temperament testing at the SPCA and she's fantastic - he'll go
through a lot of testing so see whether or not he'll make a good pet
dog - if he's got any kind of quirks at all he'll be humaely euthanized
- but if he's a super dog he'll be put up for adoption and have a super
life. He may have bitten this lady and the people before simply
because he was hungry, or he had a health issue, or something we know
nothing about - the SPCA will fix it and adopt him out. But that's
they beauty of dangerous dog legislation - it legislates the
containment and safety of the dog, and if that is not complied with the
dog is removed from the owner - because the OWNER is negligent - the
DOG is not the one who suffers. Unless the dog is actually dangerous -
then the dog is killed. But the WHOLE BREED doesn't suffer - only
individual dogs - because of what that individual dog has done - and it
could be a cocker spaniel, or a poodle - it doesn't matter. That's
what we're fighting for. So I'm very glad you pointed out that article
Ann - it's a perfect example!

Lastly, Donna said: Pit bulls already owned within Ontario are


protected so long as they are kept under proper care and control. There
are more restrictions on
them but they're not going to be put down if the owners follow the more
restrictive rules. No one will be able to purchase, import or breed
them from now on and they WILL be seized if illegally acquired or not
controlled. Personally, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own a
dog like a pit bull of a Presa Canario ( the kind of dog whose attack
on a lady in the hallway or an apartment building led to a well
publicized court case). If they have kids around an animal like that,
they need their head examined. There was a recent case in the U.S.
where a woman went out leaving her son shut in the basement because the
pit bull was "nasty". She was probably scared to try and get the dog in
the basement. Anyway, the kid snuck out and the dog mauled him to
death. The mother actually unbelievably said "It must have been his
time to go". Too bad it was the kid and not her. "

True - living pit bulls born before a certain date are grandfathered in
in Ontario - but they have to be muzzled at all times and on a 6 foot
leash when off the ownerss property. Bill 132 also changed the rules
for dogs being sold for animal experimentation as well Shelters
selling dogs to labaoratories and what they're able to do to those dogs
is going to be absolutely horrific. As well - dogs seen as "menacing"
and what menacing is being defined as has changed - and that applies to
ALL dogs and not just pit bulls - so if your neighbour calls and says
your dog - no matter what the breed - is menacing and scaring them -
you'd better watch out. The dog-haters have taken over that province -
that I can guarantee you.

As for owning that "kind" of dog - fate has a way of changing all kinds
of people's lives Donna. You can't dismiss anything. I do want to say
a word about that San Fransisco case about the little boy who's mother
locked him in the basement to keep him away from the 2 family pit
bulls. It turned out that the mother was a bit of a fruit cake
(mentally unstable) - and the 2 pit bulls were an unaltered female and
male who'd been trying to mate for the previous couple of days but the
female didn't want to have anything to do with the male so he had
become a bit pissed off. The mother had publicly said that she'd
"never had a problem with the dogs before" but people in her
neighbourhood begged to differ - everybody said that "sometimes the
dogs were fine and sometimes the dogs were nasty" - so I'd say that
when the female was in heat that the male was protective of his woman.
The mother had locked the kid in the basement because the kid had
gotten in between the 2 dogs earlier in the day and almost gotten
seriously wounded - so she didn't want him to get more seriously
wounded while she went out - the poor kid didn't realize that he could
actually get killed by the dogs who most times slept in his bed at
night. Obviously the mother never told him about the birds and the
bees - all he ever saw was the mother slapping the male dogs ass when
he was constantly trying to mount the girl dog - which is probably what
he tried to do before the male turned on him to kill him. So there's
always several sides to every story, Donna. Another instance of
children left unsupervised around dogs - and another instance of if
this was another breed of dog - the same thing could've happened - if
it was a german shepherd the outcome would've been just as tragic. But
it was a breed that just happens to be the most popular breed in North
America right now.

So with all this said - this is why I think it's so important to come
to the vigil next Sunday - to show the rest of Canada that we love our
dogs - that we love ALL dogs - and that the horrible experiment that's
going on in Ontario is not going to happen unnoticed. And when it
fails that hopefully it will never happen again - that because it
happened so publicly and failed so horribly - and so publicly - that it
won't ever happen anywhere again and won't need to happen again. It
will have been documented enough - that the 1000's of dogs who will
have died in Ontario - will have perhaps not have died completely in
vain. Their deaths will perhaps some meaning and will save tens of
thousands of other deaths around the world - because breed specific
legislation will finally be seen for what it is - unenforceable and
useless. Generic dangerous dog legislation and education are the only
things that will save your childrens, and other dogs lives'.

And that's what we're going to talk about next Sunday - with all our
chosen breeds' by our side - at 8pm at the Gazebo up the road from the
Shakespear by the Sea offices at Point Pleasant Park - I hope to see
you there!!!

Joan

http://www.geocities.com/skip_guysborough/index.html

Donna Whitman

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 11:50:54 AM8/21/05
to
On 21 Aug 2005 08:07:04 -0700, "dogk...@gmail.com"
<dogk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
>their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
>they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
>a headache

At least they don't kill people ... well, not as a habit anyway.

- but if parents choose to bring their children with them it
>will give us dog-owners an opportunity to show them how to properly act
>around dogs and how to approach a dog so that those children won't
>become a statistic

Although kids DO need to behave around dogs, dogs that are by nature
vicious don't need a provocation. Never heard of a kid being attacked
just for riding past the property on a bike? Also, bad behavior should
NOT result in a death sentence.


> I believe that fighting against BSL is about respect for
>ALL dogs - different breeds of dog are as different as different races
>of humans

You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs are ......
pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them to stay in
the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I would
NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive. Comparing racial
prejudice with BSL is insane.


>We are very lucky here in the HRM in that we already have in place the
>kind of legislation that people opposed to BSL are fighting to try and
>get. We have "dangerous dog legislation" - which doesn't refer to any
>breed in particular - it just deals with a dog who has proven itself to
>be aggressive and owners who have proven themselves to be negligent.

You do realize that it has been used frequently to force people to
get rid of pit bulls. The wording may be more to your liking but it
has the same result ... which is fine with me.


>True - living pit bulls born before a certain date are grandfathered in
>in Ontario - but they have to be muzzled at all times and on a 6 foot
>leash when off the ownerss property.


Good. Sounds just about as it should be.


>As for owning that "kind" of dog - fate has a way of changing all kinds
>of people's lives Donna. You can't dismiss anything. I do want to say
>a word about that San Fransisco case about the little boy who's mother
>locked him in the basement to keep him away from the 2 family pit
>bulls. It turned out that the mother was a bit of a fruit cake

She sure WAS a fruit cake. Anyone who allows two pit bulls,
specially ones in heat, to live in a home with a child when she
herself is scared to them is in serious need of a mental health
professional. She should have got rid of them before they managed to
kill her son.

> So there's
>always several sides to every story, Donna.

Anyone who can defend a dog who murders a child by saying there are
several sides to the story is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. The
dogs side ... the mother's side ..... what about the dead child's
side. If that were a human that had killed him, you' ld be saying hang
him high but you're making excuses for a vicious dog and that's
unconscionable.

>And that's what we're going to talk about next Sunday - with all our
>chosen breeds' by our side - at 8pm at the Gazebo up the road from the
>Shakespear by the Sea offices at Point Pleasant Park - I hope to see
>you there!!!
>
>Joan

You wouldn't catch me in a mile of a gathering of pit bulls ...
not even with body armor.

firecat

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 12:20:26 PM8/21/05
to
Donna Whitman wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2005 08:07:04 -0700, "dogk...@gmail.com"
> <dogk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
>>their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
>>they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
>>a headache
>
>
> At least they don't kill people ... well, not as a habit anyway.

nor do most dogs.. pit bulls were bred to be involved in pit fighting..
they were bred to be DOG agressive, not human aggressive..and there is a
fair bit of difference when dealing with dogs of any breed who have been
brought up and trained properly.. people who own dogs whose breeding was
for a specific purpose need to know what the hell they are owning.. any
pit, rottie, german shepherd, or poodle can and will bite, hurting,
maming or killing, for different reasons.. dogs are dogs.. they have the
equipment, they are capable of biting.. point is, a breed, any breed,
should not be destroyed just because of what breed they are.. it may be
a dog, but it's still genocide.. if the individual dog has shown a
propensity to be vicious and dangerous, by all means put it down.. but
why is the dog judged guilty of killing people based soley on his breed,
not his actions?

>
>
>
> - but if parents choose to bring their children with them it
>
>>will give us dog-owners an opportunity to show them how to properly act
>>around dogs and how to approach a dog so that those children won't
>>become a statistic
>
>
> Although kids DO need to behave around dogs, dogs that are by nature
> vicious don't need a provocation. Never heard of a kid being attacked
> just for riding past the property on a bike? Also, bad behavior should
> NOT result in a death sentence.
>

you're right, bad behaviour should not result in a death
sentence..unless you're a dog, right? that's what you're saying here..
these dogs, who may very well only be defending themselves against a
child who hurts them are being given a death sentence.. i don't want
anyone to lose a child from a dog attack, but i also don't feel it's
right for someone to be forced to kill a family pet because someone else
didn't take the responsibility to properly train their dog.. and that's
what's happening with this legislation.. joe blow in ghettotown has a
pit bull that he trained to hurt people so he could protect his drug
stash, pit bull gets out, kills a child that was in its way, everyone
who has a pit bull has to kill it.. does that -really- seem right?
shouldn't the animals be taken on a case by case basis and dealt with
accordingly?

>
>
>> I believe that fighting against BSL is about respect for
>>ALL dogs - different breeds of dog are as different as different races
>>of humans
>
>
> You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs are ......
> pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them to stay in
> the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I would
> NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive. Comparing racial
> prejudice with BSL is insane.

you missed the point here Donna.. it's more a suggestion of cultural
differences.. dogs are different, according to the breed.. for instance,
i think anyone who has an Australian Shepherd and young children in the
same household in out of their minds.. these dogs were bred for sheep
herding in Australia, and their way of herding the sheep includes
nipping the sheep on the nose.. how many children are going to be herded
and nipped on the nose, possibly causing large amounts of damage, before
that breed is banned for viciousness?

anyone who gets any dog needs to take responsibility to know what the
dog was originally bred for, and always keep that in mind when dealing
with their dog.. it's people who buy a dog because it's big, or pretty,
or whatever, who cause problems.. they expect a dog to behave like a
fmaily pet with no effort on their part, and thta just ain't gonna
happen.. even my Fred, who you liked quite well, and trusted her around
your son.. she could turn and bite at any time.. she's part German
Shepherd, a breed known for being a guard/watch dog.. also a breed that
was a vicious killer in the 1970's.. she has teeth, she could kill.. but
i, as a responsible dog owner, never let my guard down with her, never
allow her to step out of line..because if i do, it could be dangerous to
her, or anyone around her.. it is up to me to have care and control of
the dog i choose to own..

just for the record, my grandparents' toy poodle was one of the most
vicious, sneaky dogs i've ever met.. would run after you and bite youon
the ass every chance it got..

>
>
>>We are very lucky here in the HRM in that we already have in place the
>>kind of legislation that people opposed to BSL are fighting to try and
>>get. We have "dangerous dog legislation" - which doesn't refer to any
>>breed in particular - it just deals with a dog who has proven itself to
>>be aggressive and owners who have proven themselves to be negligent.
>
>
> You do realize that it has been used frequently to force people to
> get rid of pit bulls. The wording may be more to your liking but it
> has the same result ... which is fine with me.

if the pit bull, GSD, rottie, cocker spaniel, whatever, is a dangerous
dog, it suits me fine for it to be put down as well.. but it really
should be on a case by case basis, with proper temperament testing and
proper screening of homes for adoptions and such.. my personal opinion
is that people should have to go through tests themselves to prove that
they will be responsible dog owners, taking care to be sure that they
keep their dog out of dangerous situations, and do their utmost to be
sure their dog never threatens a human without a damn good reason (human
threatening owner, break in, etc)

>
>
>
>>True - living pit bulls born before a certain date are grandfathered in
>>in Ontario - but they have to be muzzled at all times and on a 6 foot
>>leash when off the ownerss property.
>
>
>
> Good. Sounds just about as it should be.
>
>

if a pit needs to be muzzled at all times, then so should every dog..
terriers are one of the worst dogs for chasing and biting shildren.. you
just don't hear about it, because most of them are small and don't
create the amount of damage pits do.. but in my opinion, a
terrier/poodle/golden retriever shouldn't have any more rights than a
pit/rottie/german shepherd.. a dog that has shown unwarranted agression
towards people needs to be evaluated by a professional animal
behaviourist to decide whether the dog is a threat, then dealt with
accordingly..on a case by case basis

>
>
>
>>As for owning that "kind" of dog - fate has a way of changing all kinds
>>of people's lives Donna. You can't dismiss anything. I do want to say
>>a word about that San Fransisco case about the little boy who's mother
>>locked him in the basement to keep him away from the 2 family pit
>>bulls. It turned out that the mother was a bit of a fruit cake
>
>
> She sure WAS a fruit cake. Anyone who allows two pit bulls,
> specially ones in heat, to live in a home with a child when she
> herself is scared to them is in serious need of a mental health
> professional. She should have got rid of them before they managed to
> kill her son.
>
>

you could also put the argument that if the child had done what he was
told, and stayed in the basement as he was told, he would be alive
today.. it's extremely sad that this child was killed..it's extremely
irresponsible of the mother for allowing it to happen.. the child was
being a child..disobediance is fairly normal.. the dog was being a dog..
protecting his mate is also normal.. again, a case of someone not
knowing what they are dealing with and allowing a horrible tragedy to
occur.. the fault in this case lies directly and totally with the
mother.. she allowed this to happen.. at the same time, if the dog had
prior complaints, it should have been evaluated and dealt with.. the
parent should not have been permitted to own a dog if she could not be
trusted to exercise good judgement..which she certainly didn't do..

>
>
>>So there's
>>always several sides to every story, Donna.
>
>
> Anyone who can defend a dog who murders a child by saying there are
> several sides to the story is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. The
> dogs side ... the mother's side ..... what about the dead child's
> side. If that were a human that had killed him, you' ld be saying hang
> him high but you're making excuses for a vicious dog and that's
> unconscionable.
>
>

the dog didn't murder the child..dogs don't murder, that's a human
concept.. the dog did what was natural and defended himself and his mate
against what he perceived as a threat.. it isn't right that it happened,
but any responsible, knowledgeable dog owner would have the brains to
know that leaving a child alone with two intact dogs is a recipe for
disaster.. the breed involved has nothing to do with it.. i've heard
similar stories about labrador retrievers, newfoundland dogs, and even
chihuahuas.. it's natural canine behaviour and the parent should have
known better..

>
>
>>And that's what we're going to talk about next Sunday - with all our
>>chosen breeds' by our side - at 8pm at the Gazebo up the road from the
>>Shakespear by the Sea offices at Point Pleasant Park - I hope to see
>>you there!!!
>>
>>Joan
>
>
> You wouldn't catch me in a mile of a gathering of pit bulls ...
> not even with body armor.

that is entirely your choice, and i would never attempt to tell someone
to go somewhere they are not comfortable.. it would be nice though, if
you were able to meet some of the pits i've met.. they are all really
great dogs..i've never met a nasty one..although i do know they are out
there.. i have, however, met a beagle recently that i wouldn't touch
with a ten foot pole because the thing would bite you as soon as look at
you.. i've also met nasty dogs of other breeds.. a nasty dog is a nasty
dog.. they exist in all breeds.. i'd rather meet up with a nasty pit
bull (50 pounds or so) than a nasty Newfoundland or English Mastiff
upwards of 150 pounds and much larger jaws)

Wonkey

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 12:26:03 PM8/21/05
to
Thanks for providing your name Joan, now I will refer to you as 'Joan
the moron', not just moron - I think it will help everyone refer to you
more accurately. You must have been a sorry child whose parents were
'not really that big a fan of' her. You may want to consider spending
more time interacting with humans instead of your dogs. You seem to
want to make this about all dogs in an attempt to get the support of
more dog owners, but its still just about a dangerous breed. I know
you have no experience with people, children or otherwise, but next
time you are at the mall, just try explaining to a two year old that if
you go near the doggie and grab its tail you will get your head torn
off. If we have to put all the pitbulls down in Canada to save just
one child then lets do it, it likely will never be Joan's kids, but it
may be yours or mine.

Donna Whitman

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 12:34:56 PM8/21/05
to
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:20:26 GMT, firecat <fir...@someplace.com>
wrote:

>Donna Whitman wrote:
>> On 21 Aug 2005 08:07:04 -0700, "dogk...@gmail.com"
>> <dogk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
>>>their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
>>>they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
>>>a headache
>>
>>
>> At least they don't kill people ... well, not as a habit anyway.
>
>nor do most dogs.. pit bulls were bred to be involved in pit fighting..


Sorry, certainly didn't mean to imply that ALL dogs do but certain
breeds ARE bred to be aggressive and should not be allowed loose in
the community or kept near children.

>they were bred to be DOG agressive, not human aggressive..and there is a
>fair bit of difference when dealing with dogs of any breed who have been
>brought up and trained properly.. people who own dogs whose breeding was
>for a specific purpose need to know what the hell they are owning.. any
>pit, rottie, german shepherd, or poodle can and will bite, hurting,
>maming or killing, for different reasons.. dogs are dogs.. they have the
>equipment, they are capable of biting.. point is, a breed, any breed,
>should not be destroyed just because of what breed they are.. it may be
>a dog, but it's still genocide.. if the individual dog has shown a
>propensity to be vicious and dangerous, by all means put it down.. but
>why is the dog judged guilty of killing people based soley on his breed,
>not his actions?

Because, as someone posted yesterday, something like 65% of all
dog injuries and deaths are caused by the specific breeds that Ontario
is trying to control. ANY dog has the equipment and, because of abuse
or neglect, could do such damage but certain breeds need little if any
provocation to do what they are hard wired to do.

If I were to attempt to kick your dog in the head, I would
probably get bitten. I am at risk to even pat a pit bull who doesn't
know me.

Ann Onimous

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 1:06:13 PM8/21/05
to
In hfx.general dogk...@gmail.com wrote:

>We are very lucky here in the HRM in that we already have in place the
>kind of legislation that people opposed to BSL are fighting to try and
>get. We have "dangerous dog legislation"

Which obviously is not working. Ask the people who were attacked how "lucky"
they feel.

>- which doesn't refer to any
>breed in particular - it just deals with a dog who has proven itself to
>be aggressive and owners who have proven themselves to be negligent.

So how many times does a dog get to attack people before it is determined to
be "aggressive"?

>So I'm very glad you pointed out that article Ann - it's a perfect example!
>

Yes, it's a perfect example of a pitbull that should not have been out roaming
the streets so that it could attack innocent people.

I think we do need a Breed Specific Legislation, and I hope we can follow
Ontario's lead. Most species of dog are relatively harmless, they are not a
real threat to humans. Some breeds, such as pitbulls, however are quite
powerful, and combined with their aggressive nature are capable of inflicting
great harm or even killing a human being. There is simply no need for these
types of breeds when so many others are available.

--
Ann Onimous
ann.o...@gmail.com

firecat

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 1:12:06 PM8/21/05
to
Donna Whitman wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:20:26 GMT, firecat <fir...@someplace.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Donna Whitman wrote:
>>
>>>On 21 Aug 2005 08:07:04 -0700, "dogk...@gmail.com"
>>><dogk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm not that big a fan of children, they tend to run around screaming -
>>>>their parents are never in control of them, they knock everything over
>>>>they come in touch with, they smell funny - they just generally give me
>>>>a headache
>>>
>>>
>>> At least they don't kill people ... well, not as a habit anyway.
>>
>>nor do most dogs.. pit bulls were bred to be involved in pit fighting..
>
>
>
> Sorry, certainly didn't mean to imply that ALL dogs do but certain
> breeds ARE bred to be aggressive and should not be allowed loose in
> the community or kept near children.

the thing that most people seem to not realize is that pit bulls were
bred to be agressive toward other dogs..they were trained to be
agressive toward people.. rotties, on the other hand, were bred by the
germans to be agressive toward unknown people.. that's why they were
such great dogs for guard duty at prisons..

a pit bull, according to its breeding purpose, was bred to fight other
dogs in a pit..if the dog was agressive toward it's handler, it was
killed..they did not tolerate human agression in the breed, because the
handler had to always be able to grab the dog and remove it from the
fight..not all pit fights were to the death, and a favoured fighting
stud dog was a valuable asset..they didn't want him dead, so they had to
be able to interrupt the dog fight and seperate the dogs.. if the breed
was bred to be human agressive, this would not have been possible..

it is human training over the past 15 years that has given the breed the
bad name it now has..people who train them to be human agressive are the
problem with the breed, not the dogs.. the breed itself, when brought up
in a home where the person training them knows what the dog's natural
tendencies are, can be a very gentle and loving family member.. it takes
a lot of work, and i still would never leave a pit and small children
unsupervised, but then again, i won't leave my dog unsupervised with
small children.. the breed of the future decade won't be a pit.. it
will be something else, some other breed that has been around for
hundreds of years, calmly minding its own business, doing what it was
bred to do..then it will suddenly be popular and end up being the
vicious breed..

pits have been in existence in fairly large numbers for about 100 years
or more.. why haven't they been vicious child killers in all that time?
why suddenly are they that way now? i'll tell you.. it's for the same
reason the GSD was in the 70's, and the doberman in the 80's.. the breed
suddenly became popular, indiscriminate breeding cause temperament
issues, and human intervention caused viciousness.. the media hype has
caused this breed to become the current fashion for undesireable groups
of people who want a vicious dog to protect their product, among other
things.. if people had to go through testing to determine their
temperament, and whether or not they should own a dog of any breed, but
specifically the 'harder' breeds, then we wouldn't have these problems..
responsible dog owners would put their dog down at the first sign of
viciousness, not encourage it until the animal was out of control.. most
of the dogs you hear about in the news who have attacked people are dogs
that are out of control.. dogs that, for whatever reason, have found
their way into the hands of people who cannot control them, or do not
want them controlled..

the case discussed previously is a perfect example, as is the case of
the teacher in California killed by the Presa Canarios.. those dogs were
also in the hands of people who had no control over them.. when the full
stories come out on the dog owners in most of these attacks, you find
out that the owner has not shown responsibility by either training their
dog properly, or by dealing with it acordingly when it has shown
agressive tendencies.. if they had been responsible when the first
possible problem showed itself, the end result would never have
happened, no one would have died..

>
>
>>they were bred to be DOG agressive, not human aggressive..and there is a
>>fair bit of difference when dealing with dogs of any breed who have been
>>brought up and trained properly.. people who own dogs whose breeding was
>>for a specific purpose need to know what the hell they are owning.. any
>>pit, rottie, german shepherd, or poodle can and will bite, hurting,
>>maming or killing, for different reasons.. dogs are dogs.. they have the
>>equipment, they are capable of biting.. point is, a breed, any breed,
>>should not be destroyed just because of what breed they are.. it may be
>>a dog, but it's still genocide.. if the individual dog has shown a
>>propensity to be vicious and dangerous, by all means put it down.. but
>>why is the dog judged guilty of killing people based soley on his breed,
>>not his actions?
>
>
> Because, as someone posted yesterday, something like 65% of all
> dog injuries and deaths are caused by the specific breeds that Ontario
> is trying to control. ANY dog has the equipment and, because of abuse
> or neglect, could do such damage but certain breeds need little if any
> provocation to do what they are hard wired to do.
>
> If I were to attempt to kick your dog in the head, I would
> probably get bitten. I am at risk to even pat a pit bull who doesn't
> know me.
>

the breeds that are 'hard wired' to attack people.. what are they
specifically? certainly not pits, who were hard-wired to be dog
agressive.. meh..regardless, that's kind of the point i'm trying to
make.. the dogs that you consider 'hard-wired' to be agressive are not
killers by nature, they are made into killers by the people who own
them.. those same dogs, brought up with a firm hand, taught from the
beginning what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, can, and often do,
become wonderful family pets that are properly protective over their
pack.. the ones that aren't in homes with responsible owners become out
of control, and feel they are the alpha dog in the pack, that's where
the problems begin..

i agree with dog control.. i honestly do.. i think that any agressive.
vicious, or dangerous dog should be evaluated and put down if it is
deemed to be a temperament problem.. if the dog isn't in pain, or isn't
being tormented to the point it must react to defend itself.. you know
how much i love dogs, you also know my opinion regarding what is and
isn't acceptable behaviour from a dog, any dog, but specifically my
own.. so, you know where i'm coming from.. :)

to be quite honest, you'd be at risk to pet any dog who doesn't know
you, not just a pit.. most dogs are wary of strangers, therefore are not
trustworthy.. it's a natural instinct in most breeds to be wary.. there
are obviously exceptions, but generally that is the case..

Gimme a Break

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 2:20:13 PM8/21/05
to
I'm Sorry, But under no circumstances should a dog be put down because they
were born a particular breed...Thats ludicrous....I can train a poodle, a
german shepherd, or a chiuhua<sp> to be aggressive....so does that mean we
should be putting down those breeds too....what a bunch of crap....it's the
same old adage....bullets don't kill...people do! If a dog attacks or kills
someone then the owner should face the charges as if they had done it
themselves. Your dog kills someone then you face murder charges...pretty
simple...otherwise ban having dogs altogether.


"Ann Onimous" <ann.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9w2Oe.201481$HI.170536@edtnps84...

G. Wayne Hines

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 3:44:19 PM8/21/05
to
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:53:30 GMT, Donna Whitman <NSBoo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:15:20 GMT, G. Wayne Hines

I didn't see anything in the article about "sympathy for the dogs".

gwh

G. Wayne Hines

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 3:54:33 PM8/21/05
to
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:20:13 GMT, "Gimme a Break"
<vem40...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'm Sorry, But under no circumstances should a dog be put down because they
>were born a particular breed...Thats ludicrous....I can train a poodle, a
>german shepherd, or a chiuhua<sp> to be aggressive....so does that mean we
>should be putting down those breeds too....what a bunch of crap....it's the
>same old adage....bullets don't kill...people do! If a dog attacks or kills
>someone then the owner should face the charges as if they had done it
>themselves. Your dog kills someone then you face murder charges...pretty
>simple...otherwise ban having dogs altogether.

The justice system/government is incapable of understanding the issues
involved in a perceived problem, so we get things like the federal gun
control fiasco and breed bans. The sad part is so many people believe
what they are fed by the politicians.

gwh

Donna Whitman

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 4:15:40 PM8/21/05
to
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:44:19 GMT, G. Wayne Hines
<w.d....@nospam.ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:53:30 GMT, Donna Whitman <NSBoo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:15:20 GMT, G. Wayne Hines
>><w.d....@nospam.ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:49:44 GMT, Ann Onimous <ann.o...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Isn't this the type of dog you're holding a vigil to try to protect?
>>>>
>>>><http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=1001&sc=2>
>>>>
>>>>Oh well, there should be one less to worry about in Metro soon.
>>>
>>>There was an interesting quote in that article:
>>>
>>>“We’re animal lovers and we feel bad for this dog. If the end result
>>>is the dog is put down, we feel bad,” she said. “Ultimately, it’s not
>>>the dog’s fault; it’s the owner’s.”
>>>
>>>gwh
>>
>> An awful lot of sympathy for the dogs and NONE for the people
>>they've killed or disfigured for life.
>
>I didn't see anything in the article about "sympathy for the dogs".
>
>gwh


Feel bad for seems to express sympathy to me.

dogk...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 5:37:46 PM8/21/05
to
Donna said: "You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs

are ...... pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them
to stay in the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I
would NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive. Comparing
racial prejudice with BSL is insane. "

Yes, I have to admit that I am one of those silly people who see all
living things as actually being alive - living, breathing, alive beings
who breathe, are born, live, and die - who have feelings, have good
days, bad days, like certain foods over other foods, prefer to sleep on
soft surfaces over concrete, would rather sleep in a dry spot than in
wet mud, feel much better after they've had a good crap - and just like
humans - I do NOT have the right to determine whether live or die based
COMPLETELY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY LOOK OR WHERE THEY WERE BORN. Now -
if they've gone out and killed a bunch or people and been found guilty
of heinous crimes, that's something different entirely - I am actually
in favour of the death penalty for humans - so why wouldn't I be in
favour of the same thing for dogs? But I would never want a human
killed because they were butt ugly. I would've been dead years ago -
and maybe you would've been too - I've never met you.

But I believe that dogs, cats, humans, pigs, cows, and all animals are
all equally alive and all should be treated equally. I will NOT
apologize for that.

And I'd like to thank you Firecat for coming into the conversation - I
hope Fred is okay!! He must be getting up there now in age! I hope you
can make it to the vigil - I'm going to be bringing Charlie with me -
Leonard has gone up to Toronto to live with her father so she won't be
there. Do you ever see April anymore? I always really appreciate your
posts - they're always VERY well articulated and RIGHT! haha! Going
to your idea of your family's toy poodle - I've got a little bichon mix
who will NOT be at the vigil because of her dog aggression problem.
Charlie - who is 110 pounds is a perfect ambassador for dog-dom and can
go anywhere - Buttercup on the other hand has been banned for many
places because of her incorrigible behaviour.

Wonkey said: "Thanks for providing your name Joan, now I will refer to


you as 'Joan the moron', not just moron - I think it will help everyone
refer to you more accurately. You must have been a sorry child whose

parents were 'not really that big a fan of' her. You may want to


consider spending more time interacting with humans instead of your
dogs"

I have no idea why people always think that just because an adult has
an affinity for having dogs as companions in their life society thinks
it's because of the way their parent's raised them and there must have
been some deficiency in their childhood. I had a perfectly normal
childhood. Those kind of statements always confuse me. And I'm
surprised that you decided to continue with using the word moron in
close association with my name Mr Moron when you saw that I take
advantage of the website Dictionary.com - I went and looked up your
user name "Wonkey" - it's defined as "Probably alteration of dialectal
wanky, alteration of wankle, from Middle English - Shaky; feeble,
wrong, awry - so I think you hit the head on the nail when you picked
your name that you use on the internet!! haha! I also looked up moron
so that you wouldn't have to waste time go looking it up: "A person of
mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and
generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree
of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a
classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive"
- so it's basically just an archaic term that no one uses anymore and
people just find offensive now - I'm not offended - I never take
anything said about me on the internet personally because you don't
KNOW me - I'm just bemused.

Gimme a Break

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 6:15:58 PM8/21/05
to

<dogk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124660266....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Donna said: "You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs
> are ...... pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them
> to stay in the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I
> would NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive.

Dogs aren't bred to be aggressive...they're trained that way....there's a
difference....and who trains them....Humans! So therefore any human who
trains an animal to be agressive and that animal hurts or kills someone, the
owner should be held accountable.

Heather Morrison

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 7:18:05 PM8/21/05
to

"firecat" <fir...@someplace.com> wrote in message
news:eR1Oe.192851$9A2.76382@edtnps89...

> you missed the point here Donna.. it's more a suggestion of cultural
> differences.. dogs are different, according to the breed.. for instance, i
> think anyone who has an Australian Shepherd and young children in the same
> household in out of their minds.. these dogs were bred for sheep herding
> in Australia, and their way of herding the sheep includes nipping the
> sheep on the nose.. how many children are going to be herded and nipped on
> the nose, possibly causing large amounts of damage, before that breed is
> banned for viciousness?
>

<snip all sorts of other really great points>

Ok..Ms Cat..I have to step in here..*G* As an Auntie to an Aussie I have to
say that this comes down to the same issue as Pit Bulls. The owners need to
take responsibility here. Our dear Aussie ADORES children and is gentle as a
fluffy stuffed toy with them. Never has nipping of humans ever been
tolerated at any time in her raising. She is 9 now and although impatient
with my 14 month old giant puppy she is still totally enamoured with kids.

Yes, she chased them up and down the hills as they tobogganed. Yes, she
tried to round them up when they played ball. Never did she ever try and nip
them....EVER! There would have been responsible consequences for such
actions if she did. The nipping issue was dealt with by adults when she was
young and very pliable. She wasn't allowed to "play" with kids until she was
deemed trustworthy enough. This is what responsible ownership of any pet is
as you know.

That being said I don't reccommend Aussies for the faint of heart or the
weak willed. They are always challenging their families. It's part of their
charm for most of thier owners...and can pose exasperation for others.
Aussies need to think they have jobs to do ....all the time! If you don't
have time to teach them..and provide them jobs...I can't think of anything
more challenging than living with a bored Aussie..LOL!

The most difficult breed we ever had to raise were two Jack Russells who I
adore for their character but they were the most tenacious beasties I have
ever dealt with. They put my bouv's determination to shame!!

So here is my rule of thumb...no more dogs that are smarter than me...and
WOW...I didn't realize how many breeds and mixes of breeds that ruled out
until I started looking for a new companion. LOL..now that's an
admission..LOL!

Anyway..I have been reading the thread and thanks for you positive and
insightful information. I have been refraining from stepping in as you and
Joan are doing a wonderful job of presenting thoughtful and positive
alternatives to mostly uneducated reactions.

This is an important topic not only for pet owners but for the protection of
the general public. Having appropriate legislation in place could prevent
neglect and abuse of animals and could provide a safer environment for
responsible pet owners and their communities to live together.

The problem is that the general public aren't usually interested in dogs
enough to delve deeply into the root of the issues. Usually they just want
the problem fixed. BSL would seem the obvious answer to most non-dog
people. I just ask that people, before they make judgement, actually delve
into the issue and understand the facts.

Joan and yourself have done a wonderful job of presenting them...and
interpreting them properly.

Thanks for your time...hey...and back off our Aussie! LOL! Cripes..you'll
have them banning them next..LOL!

HeatherM...owner of a raucous goofy loveable Leo puppy who is slowly
learning her manners..thankfully!

firecat

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 1:02:24 AM8/22/05
to
dogk...@gmail.com wrote:

> And I'd like to thank you Firecat for coming into the conversation - I
> hope Fred is okay!! He must be getting up there now in age! I hope you
> can make it to the vigil - I'm going to be bringing Charlie with me -
> Leonard has gone up to Toronto to live with her father so she won't be
> there. Do you ever see April anymore? I always really appreciate your
> posts - they're always VERY well articulated and RIGHT! haha! Going
> to your idea of your family's toy poodle - I've got a little bichon mix
> who will NOT be at the vigil because of her dog aggression problem.
> Charlie - who is 110 pounds is a perfect ambassador for dog-dom and can
> go anywhere - Buttercup on the other hand has been banned for many
> places because of her incorrigible behaviour.

Fred's doing very well, and you may just see her at the vigil.. i'd like
to see Charlie again, it's been a long time.. i don't see April
anymore, but i'll tell you all about that either at the vigil, or
through private email.. that's one Newfoundland dog who ended up being
given a raw deal, but thankfully, she's out of it now..

as for my posts, i try to be very careful about what i write regarding
the dogs.. a lot of people don't know canine behaviour very well, so i
try to stick with facts and explain in a non-ofensive manner if i can..

when it comes to dog laws, education is the only way to get what is best
for both the dogs, and the humans.. we must always look to educating
people so they understand dog behaviour.. canine thought process is
fascinating..but so very very different from human....

firecat

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 1:08:04 AM8/22/05
to

*chuckles*

Sorry Heather, you know I'm not condemning Aussies.. they are awesome
dogs..just not for the faint of heart, as you said.. I'm am guilty,
however, of exaggerating a breed trait in order to make a point, and I
shouldn't.

Aussies are definitely wonderful dogs, and as Heather states, they can
be beautiful, well behaved pets. The major point that Heather has
actually helped me to make by taking me to task is that she had to
bloody well WORK to make certain that this dog wouldn't use its
instinctual response when dealing with humans. It's the same thing with
pits and all other dogs. Responsible dog owners put the effort in to
make sure that their dogs are well-behaved ambasadors for the breed, and
for dogs in general. Thnk you for that Heather, and I promise not to
make generalized statements anymore, not even to get a point across.

hug your Leo for me! she must be getting big!

firecat

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 1:14:43 AM8/22/05
to
Gimme a Break wrote:
> <dogk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124660266....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Donna said: "You're not serious, are you? Humans are humans and dogs
>>are ...... pets. As much as I love my two cats, I would not allow them
>>to stay in the home if they showed persistent signs of aggression and I
>>would NEVER own an animal that was bred to be aggressive.
>
>
> Dogs aren't bred to be aggressive...they're trained that way....there's a
> difference....and who trains them....Humans! So therefore any human who
> trains an animal to be agressive and that animal hurts or kills someone, the
> owner should be held accountable.
>
>

actually, you're not entirely correct.. some dog breeds are naturally
agressive, they were bred to be that way when the breed was fisrt
created.. pits are one of those breeds..as are some types of mastiffs,
and 2-3 of the japanese breeds.. it is up to responsible dog owners to
make the effort to control those traits of their chosen companion so
that the dog does no harm to people or other animals.. an aggressive
breed can be trained out of instinctual behaviour..

on the flip side, any dog can be made agressive with training.. humans
are wonderful at taking something perfectly normal and non-threatening
and making it into a dangerous weapon..and yes, a dog who has been
tormented and trained to be indiscriminately agressive IS a weapon.. a
very dangerous one, because it is also completely unpredictable..

anyway, the main point here is that Breed Specific Legislation is not
going to solve the current problem in Ontario, or anywhere else.. what
WILL solve the problem is education for dog owners so they will be
responsible and make their companion a pleasure to be around instead of
an instrument of irrational fear..and, in my opinion, a form of
temperament testing for the prospective owner of a dog, to do the best
that we can do as a community to be sure a dog will go into a home that
will be safe, caring and healthy.. for both the dog, and the community
at large..

spacema...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 9:16:40 AM8/22/05
to
Dogkisser wrote:
"I LOVE this statement. Let me tell you why I got into the fight
against breed specific legislation - because I own 2 pocket knives and
a rottie mix - and I got the rottie mix AFTER I started fighting
against BSL and I intially was only going to foster the rottie mix, not
adopt her. I believe that fighting against BSL is about respect for

ALL dogs - different breeds of dog are as different as different races
of humans - as different as Chinese, Japanese, Nepalese, German, French
and YOU are. To say anything else is simply untrue. And I believe
that God is the one who decided who should be on this earth and he's
the one who decides who leaves this earth - not the legislators and
elected officals. And because all dogs are the same breed specific
legislation is being disprespectful to MY dog because they are saying
that a type of dog isn't worthy of being on this earth - a type of dog
that really IS just like my dog - so they're saying that DOGS aren't
worthy of being on this earth and that's just not right. Dogs are my
chosen life time companion - so I'm going to fight to keep them because
they may decide that the look of the dog that I own is next. And I
don't believe that the analogy of dogs as pocket knives and guns is
correct - I believe that dogs are like delicate flowers - they wilt
very quickly when they don't have any sunshine or love - but when given
lots of love, gentle care, love, fresh air and good food - they'll
blossom and be the most beautiful creatures you can ever imagine."

Well, I think you have pointed out to all of use just who you are and
what you represent. I really don't have to say anything in rebutal as
you have pretty much summed yourself up nicely for everyone... but what
the heck:

I did not say that pitbulls do not have the right to live on the earth!
Where did you get that from? I am saying that they do NOT belong in
SOCIETY. They are NOT able to be domesticated. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I am
curious why you don't run down to the local zoo and grab a newborn
leopard or lion cub to raise as you see fit. Go on, ignore the SINCERE
wishes and rights of society. You make me laugh. Are you sure you are
not related to Sigfried and Roy? Because man oh man, you need a reality
check. Don't kill off all the breeds that can't be domesticated - put
them in zoos! BECAUSE THATS WHERE THEY BELONG. Intentional and
"accidental" (instinctual attacks) will be eliminated this way. Behind
bars. I don't care if you have chosen your potential killer dog as a
lifelong pet - you live in a SOCIETY with all the benefits derived from
such. Right now you are a nuisance and soon a criminal. If you want to
live "forever in bliss" with your childkiller, may I respectfully say -
GET THE HECK OUT OF DODGE, AND MOVE TO A NICE, SECLUDED AREA WHERE YOU
CAN BE ONE WITH YOUR PITBULL. That is, until he decides to snap your
neck when you aren't looking. I can see the headlines now: "The DINGO
ate her. But she had a smile on her face."

Please leave. The park is along the right track, but I mean move WAY
out. Like the Yukon or something. You don't like children, yet you live
in society. You prefer dogs. Wild dogs. What part am I missing? Here's
an idea - go see that new movie about bears - the guy who lived with
them for awhile thinking that they were his friends. There is a
surprise ending for you. HINT: He won't be kissing bears anytime soon.
And lastly a tip for you, don't bring religion into your posts; it
makes you look lazy.

santos

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 11:48:01 AM8/22/05
to

are you a troll or partially retarded? its hard to determine as of yet, but
if there is any type of breed ban it should include whatever category you
fall into.

santos


jimd...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 4:10:20 PM8/22/05
to
santos - nice, eloquent reply. Now think critically and shutup.

firecat

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 4:15:50 PM8/22/05
to


*snickers*

Rich Johnson

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 8:49:30 PM8/22/05
to
firecat <fir...@someplace.com> wrote in
news:7bdOe.233822$on1.18901@clgrps13:


Some snippage

>
> actually, you're not entirely correct.. some dog breeds are naturally
> agressive, they were bred to be that way when the breed was fisrt
> created.. pits are one of those breeds..as are some types of mastiffs,
> and 2-3 of the japanese breeds.. it is up to responsible dog owners to
> make the effort to control those traits of their chosen companion so
> that the dog does no harm to people or other animals.. an aggressive
> breed can be trained out of instinctual behaviour..
>

I'm not sure if agressivness and instinctual behaviour can be trained out
of an animal, I was going to use what's his name, the magican who was
attacked by a tiger. I'd say those were well trained animals and they
still attacked.

I guess I'd come down on the side of banning or at least severly
restricting some breeds of dogs, similarly as we control firearms, look
at the restrictions on hand guns for example

--
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada

firecat

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 9:51:37 PM8/22/05
to


specific case by case informaton is the best way to go.. regardless of
what the animal is, if it displays agressiveness that animal
behaviourists feel is threatening, then the animal must be dealt with..
but to ban an animal based on what it is, rather than on it's behaviour,
isn't the way to go..

the dangerous dog laws that we have make sense..they just need to be
enforced better, and the SPCA, or Animal Control needs to have canine
behaviourists on staff for temperament testing..

the instincts and agresssivenes can't be trained out of a dog, and i
apologize for the wording.. the animal can be trained to know that the
behaviour is unacceptable, and if the trainer is consistant, and good at
their job, then the animal can be consistantly well behaved.. i still
would never leave an animal that has instinctual behaviours that may
cause aggressiveness alone with children, but i won't leave my dog alone
with children either.. and she's not at all aggressive.. i'm just
careful and responsible..

instinctual behaviour can be curbed, and modified..again, my dog is a
good example.. she's part Siberian Husky, and used to be untrustworthy
due to one of their traits..wandering.. a Sibe will wander just for the
sake of wandering.. through careful and consistant training, my girl
will now not leave the yard without escort..not for any reason.. and
she's been tested with stray cats, and other dogs.. she goes to the
property line, and stops..

thing is, there are pit bulls and rotties out there who are wonderful
dogs, friendly, affectionate, and as trustworthy around people as any
dog ever is..and those dogs will suffer by this type of legislation as
well as the aggressive, nasty vicious ones.. the general public would be
much better served by ridding itself of the dogs, of any breed, who are
dangerous, agressive, or vicious, rather than banning pit bulls and
leaving the nasty German Shepherds, Dobermans, Mastiffs, chihuahuas and
cockers around to cause mischief and mayhem..

what most people seem to have blinders on about is that banning pit
bulls isn't going to solve the problem, it's merely going to destroy a
dog breed.. the problem will still exist.. the people who allow the pits
et.al. to behave in a manner that is dangerous to the general public
will still be out there, and will still be able to get a dog..which will
then be turned into the same aggressive, dangerous dog as the pit bull
before him.. if we allow this type of legislation, where will is stop?
what breeds will escape the breed specific legislation if these people
keep turning a new breed into the latest media frenzy of dog attacks?

all this legislation does is play into the hands of PETA, who want pet
ownership of anykind abolished, and will wantonly kill dogs and cats to
suit their own agenda..that of getting rid of the companion animal
altogether.. is that what we want?

if it isn't what you want, be careful what you support..research the
facts behind the breeds of dogs targetted, educate yourself on natural
canine behaviour so you will be a responsible dog owner who will know
what to expect of your pet due to it's instinctual behaviours as well as
it's trained behaviours.. that's the way to solve the dog attack
problem, education and research.. and if there must be legislation, make
it specific to an individual dog that is causing a problem, or even
better, the owner of any individual dog that is causing a problem..
catch the issue at it's root, the owner..not when it has already
escalated into something horrifying..

Message has been deleted

firecat

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 11:27:54 PM8/22/05
to
Guru wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:51:37 GMT, firecat <fir...@someplace.com>
> enlightened us with:

>
>
>>Rich Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>firecat <fir...@someplace.com> wrote in
>>>news:7bdOe.233822$on1.18901@clgrps13:
>>>
>>>
>>>Some snippage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>actually, you're not entirely correct.. some dog breeds are naturally
>>>>agressive, they were bred to be that way when the breed was fisrt
>>>>created.. pits are one of those breeds..as are some types of mastiffs,
>>>>and 2-3 of the japanese breeds.. it is up to responsible dog owners to
>>>>make the effort to control those traits of their chosen companion so
>>>>that the dog does no harm to people or other animals.. an aggressive
>>>>breed can be trained out of instinctual behaviour..
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure if agressivness and instinctual behaviour can be trained out
>>>of an animal, I was going to use what's his name, the magican who was
>>>attacked by a tiger. I'd say those were well trained animals and they
>>>still attacked.
>>>
>>>I guess I'd come down on the side of banning or at least severly
>>>restricting some breeds of dogs, similarly as we control firearms, look
>>>at the restrictions on hand guns for example
>>>
>>
>>
>>specific case by case informaton is the best way to go.. regardless of
>>what the animal is, if it displays agressiveness that animal
>>behaviourists feel is threatening, then the animal must be dealt with..
>>but to ban an animal based on what it is, rather than on it's behaviour,
>>isn't the way to go..
>
>
> So you think that dogs bred for their fighting attributes should be
> available to the general public?

no, the dogs should be available to those who have the temperament and
mindset to train them to be trustworthy and well behaved..


>
>
>>the dangerous dog laws that we have make sense..they just need to be
>>enforced better, and the SPCA, or Animal Control needs to have canine
>>behaviourists on staff for temperament testing.
>
>

> Like Pit Bulls vary by dog! LOL!.

yes, actually they do.. just like dogs of any breed, they are all
individuals with their own individual personalities.. and if you think
that's not the case with dogs, then you haven't the foggiest clue what
you're talking about..

>
> Dogs are bred for their attributes,,, and the attributes of Pit Bulls
> are fighting skills. Just like Labs are bred fro their retrieving
> skills etc.......


>
>
>>the instincts and agresssivenes can't be trained out of a dog, and i
>>apologize for the wording.. the animal can be trained to know that the
>>behaviour is unacceptable, and if the trainer is consistant, and good at
>>their job, then the animal can be consistantly well behaved.. i still
>>would never leave an animal that has instinctual behaviours that may
>>cause aggressiveness alone with children, but i won't leave my dog alone
>>with children either.. and she's not at all aggressive.. i'm just
>>careful and responsible..
>
>

> Well, I had a dog that I wouldn't hesitate to leave with children
> because that dog wasn't aggressive ...... by nature or training.
>
> That's the reason why breeds are different!

then you were taking an awful chance with the children.. any dog can
bite, and will bite if it feels threatened.. they are dogs, they all
have instincts, and a dogs instincts are to fight or flee.. it has
nothing to do with the breed, it has to do with the temperament of the
dog, the training and care that has been put into the dog..but you've
already shown twice that you have no understanding of canine behaviour..

>
>
>>instinctual behaviour can be curbed, and modified..again, my dog is a
>>good example.. she's part Siberian Husky, and used to be untrustworthy
>>due to one of their traits..wandering.. a Sibe will wander just for the
>>sake of wandering.. through careful and consistant training, my girl
>>will now not leave the yard without escort..not for any reason.. and
>>she's been tested with stray cats, and other dogs.. she goes to the
>>property line, and stops..
>
>

> And probably isn't an instinctive killer either,,,,right?

she's a German Shepherd/Siberian Husky mix.. you figure it out..

>
>
>>thing is, there are pit bulls and rotties out there who are wonderful
>>dogs, friendly, affectionate, and as trustworthy around people as any
>>dog ever is..and those dogs will suffer by this type of legislation as
>>well as the aggressive, nasty vicious ones.. the general public would be
>>much better served by ridding itself of the dogs, of any breed, who are
>>dangerous, agressive, or vicious, rather than banning pit bulls and
>>leaving the nasty German Shepherds, Dobermans, Mastiffs, chihuahuas and
>>cockers around to cause mischief and mayhem..
>>
>>what most people seem to have blinders on about is that banning pit
>>bulls isn't going to solve the problem, it's merely going to destroy a
>>dog breed.. the problem will still exist.. the people who allow the pits
>>et.al. to behave in a manner that is dangerous to the general public
>>will still be out there, and will still be able to get a dog..which will
>>then be turned into the same aggressive, dangerous dog as the pit bull
>>before him.. if we allow this type of legislation, where will is stop?
>>what breeds will escape the breed specific legislation if these people
>>keep turning a new breed into the latest media frenzy of dog attacks?
>
>

> I have no problem destroying the entire Pit Bull breed and I don't
> have ant "blinders" on. There is no logical reason for the breed other
> than fighting. That's what they are bred for and that's what
> eventually they revert to. Saying thy aren't ids akin to saying a
> Rolls Royce can be a great sports car ,,, if you drive it hard! LOL

not all pits revert to fighting, and they were NEVER bred to be human
agressive, so the idea of them reverting to harming people is
ludicrous.. the pits that are aggressive toward people were made that
why by people.. once again, you show that you have no clue when it comes
to the facts behind the original breeding of these dogs..

>
>
>>all this legislation does is play into the hands of PETA, who want pet
>>ownership of anykind abolished, and will wantonly kill dogs and cats to
>>suit their own agenda..that of getting rid of the companion animal
>>altogether.. is that what we want?
>
>

> That's a crazy statement!

how is it crazy? read the statements by Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of
PETA.. the statements i made above merely echo what she and her group
are quite open about.. research the facts before telling me that i'm
making crazy statements

>
>
>>if it isn't what you want, be careful what you support..research the
>>facts behind the breeds of dogs targetted, educate yourself on natural
>>canine behaviour so you will be a responsible dog owner who will know
>>what to expect of your pet due to it's instinctual behaviours as well as
>>it's trained behaviours.. that's the way to solve the dog attack
>>problem, education and research.. and if there must be legislation, make
>>it specific to an individual dog that is causing a problem, or even
>>better, the owner of any individual dog that is causing a problem..
>>catch the issue at it's root, the owner..not when it has already
>>escalated into something horrifying..
>
>

> Why pray tell are the Pit Bulls the most problematic? Because they all
> have nut cases for owners? Don't think so. Its the dogs in the hands
> of owners that can't control them...
>
> Is that an owner or a breed problem,,,and before you answer that,
> think about the probability of the same owner having a ,,,hmm
> Poodle,,, and the possibility of that Poodle being a problem.....

yes, a poodle can certainly be a problem.. my grandparents had one that
was completely out of control, and bit everyone it could get behind..
Joan stated already that her Bichon Frise is also aggressive..

Pit Bulls are not problematic, the media hype surrounding them is..
there are attacks, yes.. just as there were huge numbers of attacks by
vicious German Shpeherds in the 1970's, and Dobermans in the 1980's.. in
the 90's it was the Rottweiler.. now it's the Pit Bull.. why? because
they are a popular breed, being bred indiscriminately by puppy millers
and backyard breeders who couldn't care less what they are putting
together to produce a litter as long as they make money..

do the research NOMAN..even you can find the information, the facts, if
you want to look for it.. i've done the research.. i've read the
articles on the internet, the news stories, etc. in almost every case
of a dog killing a child, it was because the adults were NOT supervising
dangerous situations.. intact dogs near bitches in heat are NOT safe for
young children who may not understand that the dog has other things on
his mind, period..

this is the last post i will respond to of yours, as i refuse to engage
in a battle with you over this when you cannot be bothered to even look
for the facts.. if you choose to do the research that i've spent the
past 10 years doing, then i may discuss this with you..

santos

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 4:35:05 AM8/23/05
to

<jimd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124741420.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> santos - nice, eloquent reply. Now think critically and shutup.
>

and the point of your post was... ? no need to get in on this discussion,
the only person with any sense seems to be firecat, the other posters
repeatedly make factual errors and obviously have no idea about the breed.
Great incites such as 'bred as an attack dog' 'until he decides to snap your
neck when you aren't looking' 'babykiller' 'wild dogs'. The pit bull breed
was never trained to attack humans, they have no tendancy to 'turn' any more
than any other dog, they arent any more 'wild' then any other breed. As for
breed bans, there are stacks of information showing how they dont work, how
what ends up happening is you have ppl abandoning animals in droves and then
getting another breed that isnt on the list. You have 2 sets of facts from
which to choose, facts that are readily available on the internet or even
your local library or veternarian or any number of sources, or from 'common
knowledge' which goes in hand with media hype. Apparently pit bulls are the
only breed of dog that attacks anyone going by newspaper coverage.... funny
how that doesnt match up with hospital statistics, but if a kid gets bit by
a lab and has to have a few stitches no one is interested. Bah, why bother
explaining any of this to people who dont know any better, think I'll go lay
back down with the 'vicious animal' thats snoring on the bed instead.

santos


Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 6:25:00 AM8/23/05
to
firecat wrote:

Exactly!!!!

Tay

--
Ian 'Tay' Landry, MA MSW
255 Melrose Crescent Eastern Passage NS Canada B3G 1P7
Ph: (902)479-2254 Cell: (902)830-2254 Fax: (902)431-0374
Email: t...@eastlink.ca


guy...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 11:13:59 AM8/23/05
to
Well I have had enough of the lovefest for child killing dogs. Quotes
like: "in almost every case of a dog killing a child, it was because

the adults were NOT supervising
dangerous situations" (What about the child? What say do they have in
being killed? Must everything with you be either dog or adult? Think
about the kids for just one second - CAN YOU DO THAT?) and "The pit
bull breed was never trained to attack humans" (ridiculous - agressive
behavior to kill any creature is not to be tolerated - personalities of
dogs - LOL; dogs are NOT SENTIENT BEINGS! Just where are you going with
the dog personality claim? Haha - I guess they better start voting for
the right politicians then eh? LMAO!) claim to be based on an educated
point of view and non-biased. If anyone else reading these posts
actually think that the authors are critical thinkers and are true
experts in the field then I hope they do their own research to prove
otherwise. They are getting pets' instincts mixed up with human ego and
personality. Pet's do NOT have a superego either! (human psychology
that explains how people interact with one another, or being aware of
others feelings) Do your own research readers. Thats what the Internet
was designed for originally - research. It is important to distinguish
someone who is biased (like a pitbull owner - who will naturally fight
for his dog; or a father - who will naturally fight for his children).
Now approach it from neutrality as a jury would - what is more
important IN SOCIETY, pets or children? If the two cannot be mixed with
certainty, should licensing be an issue for one or both of these
groups? HAHAHAA. I am trying to be civil here and the thought process
is absolutely ridiculous. Even though one of the posters on this thread
has publicly said that she prefers dogs over children (*rolls eyes*).
CHILDREN ARE HUMAN! Give me a break.

It is too bad that you feel persecuted for your dog's sake. But it is
society that is doing it and not a biased entity. It is society as a
whole that is finally coming to grips with what is right for our
country, and society gains it's opinion gradually over time from MANY
sources of information, voices them through democratically elected
representatives, and relies on not just one media source, or two or
three, but decades worth of input. You must realize that what is
happening is something that did not happen overnight, but is coming to
fruition over decades of sad events and research. Sure, you have your
pockets of resistance like this cute little meeting of yours, but
unfortunately for you, and fortunately for society - you will be pushed
back over time, like the public smokers and the people of racial and
sexual intolerence. Your time is over. Buy a nice aquarium. Focus on
human interaction, instead of wallowing in your own sense of what is
just. If you don't want to, that's fine - but don't force your will on
a society who doesn't want it. MOVE. Out in the city somewhere. I don't
mean to be rude, but hey, I ask smokers to butt out when it bothers me
in public places; and I am backed BY THE LAW. Get used to it.

Al Smith

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 2:11:01 PM8/23/05
to
> and the point of your post was... ? no need to get in on this discussion,
> the only person with any sense seems to be firecat, the other posters
> repeatedly make factual errors and obviously have no idea about the breed.
> Great incites such as 'bred as an attack dog' 'until he decides to snap your
> neck when you aren't looking' 'babykiller' 'wild dogs'. The pit bull breed
> was never trained to attack humans, they have no tendancy to 'turn' any more
> than any other dog, they arent any more 'wild' then any other breed. As for
> breed bans, there are stacks of information showing how they dont work, how
> what ends up happening is you have ppl abandoning animals in droves and then
> getting another breed that isnt on the list. You have 2 sets of facts from
> which to choose, facts that are readily available on the internet or even
> your local library or veternarian or any number of sources, or from 'common
> knowledge' which goes in hand with media hype. Apparently pit bulls are the
> only breed of dog that attacks anyone going by newspaper coverage.... funny
> how that doesnt match up with hospital statistics, but if a kid gets bit by
> a lab and has to have a few stitches no one is interested. Bah, why bother
> explaining any of this to people who dont know any better, think I'll go lay
> back down with the 'vicious animal' thats snoring on the bed instead.
>
> santos

The problem isn't that pit bulls attack humans more often than
other dogs (although this may well be the case) -- it is that they
do more damage when they attack.

Who cares how often beagles or Scotties nip? They are yappy, timid
little dogs that can't do any real harm to an adult under average
circumstances. Pit bulls, on the other hand, bite harder and are
less willing to back off from their attack. They go for the kill.

I don't see any reason to try to protect them. They aren't a
natural species, they are a dog breed. Who cares if they cease to
exist? According to Mother Nature they never should have existed
in the first place. I'm in favor of them being banned from cities
and towns.

dogk...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 2:29:14 PM8/23/05
to
Spacemarine2 said: "Well, I think you have pointed out to all of use

just who you are and what you represent. I really don't have to say
anything in rebuttal as you have pretty much summed yourself up nicely

for everyone... but what the heck:
Mr Space Marine, who are you? I was referring to a post made by Donna
Whitman I thought.... Are you Donna Whitman? If you are, then I
apologize, but that's who I was answering a question for in your
quote that you are replying to in the above paragraph - so I'm sure
why you're so upset with me - but I would LOVE to say a little bit
about your reply - you are obviously a HUGE dog-hater, and are either
extremely afraid of dogs or never owned one in your life, which I'm
truly sorry for. But either way - your blather isn't going to gain
any insights either way into the conversation so I'm not going to
acknowledge it anymore. A troll is a troll and unfortunately you've
shown yourself as one far too early in the game. Sorry. All I can do
is laugh.

Guyt said: "Well I have had enough of the lovefest for child killing


dogs. Quotes like: "in almost every case of a dog killing a child, it
was because the adults were NOT supervising dangerous situations"
(What about the child? What say do they have in being killed? Must
everything with you be either dog or adult? Think about the kids for
just one second - CAN YOU DO THAT?) "

The question I ask when children are mauled to death by dogs that have
been unsupervised is 2 fold - where were the dog's owners - but I
also ask - where were the children's parents? Why is that question
never asked? Why is always completely and totally the dog owners
fault? I always think that there are 2 adult humans to blame - the
dog's owner and the CHILD'S PARENT - for letting that child go
out unsupervised. When a child is killed by a dog there is no question
that it is a huge tragedy in many different ways - with the biggest
one being the death of the child - but that child's parent is
grossly negligent and MUST be called to task and NEVER IS. And WHY
NOT?

"Guyt also said: You must realize that what is happening is


something that did not happen overnight, but is coming to
fruition over decades of sad events and research. Sure, you have your
pockets of resistance like this cute little meeting of yours, but
unfortunately for you, and fortunately for society - you will be pushed
back over time, like the public smokers and the people of racial and
sexual intolerence. Your time is over. Buy a nice aquarium. Focus on
human interaction, instead of wallowing in your own sense of what is
just. If you don't want to, that's fine - but don't force your will on
a society who doesn't want it. MOVE. Out in the city somewhere. I don't
mean to be rude, but hey, I ask smokers to butt out when it bothers me
in public places; and I am backed BY THE LAW. Get used to it."

I'm sorry to say Mr Guyt that I think you've got it backwards -
at least in North America - statistics say that more and more people
are having less and less children and are choosing to have dogs as
their companions - so this is only going to get worse for you
dog-haters - not better. So you better fasten your seat belt - and
maybe you might want to think about moving - because there are
1000's of people in the Halifax Regional Municipality who own dogs
and there is a VIBRANT, ACTIVE, POLITICAL, articulate, well-educated,
well connected - and well-networked community of dog owners in this
city who have decided that we don't want to live by rules developed
by people like YOU anymore. We want to develop rules and laws that are
fair and equitable to EVERYONE - and that includes people who ride
bicycles, people who own dogs, people who walk on sidewalks, and people
who ride in wheel chairs. So I'm sorry to say Mr GuyT - you might
want to buy yourself a dehydrator and start preparing your bug-out kit
now.

But to sum up - the vigil this Sunday isn't really about pit bulls
- it's about ALL dogs - it's about YOUR dog. It's about
respect for dogs. Just this thread has shown how many people don't
respect dogs - how many "dog-haters" are out there. Sunday is an
opportunity to come and show that you love YOUR dog enough that you
don't want to see THOUSANDS OF DOGS DIE NEEDLESSLY. And that you are
going to be brave enough in the coming months to bear witness to what
is going to happen in Ontario - to the genocide that's going to
happen (sorry Wonkey for using another proprietary word). Please
don't let all these posts let the original post fade away the
original intent of the message - Sunday at 8pm there's going to be
a vigil at Point Pleasant Park at the Gazebo which is up the hill from
the Shakespeare by the Sea Offices. You can download a poster to find
out more info at
http://users.eastlink.ca/~joansinden/halifax_dog_vigil.pdf

It's also now become a world-wide event - you can go to
http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/08/my_dog_votes_so.html
- to find out more about that.

Joan
--
http://dogkisser.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/charlieloveshalifax/index.html
http://www.cafepress.com/dogkisser

http://www.geocities.com/skip_guysborough/

Message has been deleted

Wonkey

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 8:10:08 PM8/23/05
to
Come on Joan, please say you were kidding?

where were the children's parents? Why is that question
never asked? Why is always completely and totally the dog owners
fault? I always think that there are 2 adult humans to blame - the
dog's owner and the CHILD'S PARENT - for letting that child go
out unsupervised. When a child is killed by a dog there is no question

that it is a huge tragedy in many different ways - with the biggest
one being the death of the child - but that child's parent is
grossly negligent and MUST be called to task and NEVER IS. And WHY
NOT?

When your out walking your dog don't you ever even see a child? Were
you born into this world an adult? Have you ever seen a TV show with
children in it?
Did your parents walk one foot behind you until you were able to
successfully fight off a hundred pound dog? If a gun owner left a gun
on the street and a kid found it, would you blame a kid for blowing his
head off and ask "where were the kids parents?" Lets keep asking
questions, here's another - would you let your seven year old daughter
out to play in the yard by herself? If you did do you think she would
win a fight with your pitbull?

I'm serious, could you answer these questions for me. How big do kids
have to be to survive an attack by your dog? Why couldn't that lady in
California survive the attack by those two dogs? Wasn't she old
enough, I wonder where her parents were.

I can just imagine you now, your pitbull just killed your neighbors'
daughter, her body is lying on the street, up walks Joan and asks "Why
couldn't you watch your kids?"
Does this sound crazy to anyone but me?

bark

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 8:10:19 PM8/23/05
to

> I don't see any reason to try to protect them. They aren't a natural
> species, they are a dog breed. Who cares if they cease to exist?
> According to Mother Nature they never should have existed in the first
> place. I'm in favor of them being banned from cities and towns.

Lots of people who care about dogs care if they cease to exist. Banning
one breed of dog doesn't only affect that breed, it affects all breeds
because it opens the door. the criminals who use dogs as weapons will
"build a better mousetrap", the people who generally abuse their dogs,
will abuse other breeds. The problem with banning specific breeds, is
that it is punishing the wrong end of the leash. Humans are responsible
for breeding temperamentally unsound dogs of any breed, they are
responsible for creating aggressive dogs who attack. It's like a drunk
driver. If a drunk driver kills a person on the crosswalk who gets
arrested? the car? Because arresting a car would make sense, wouldn't
it? the driver wouldn't have killed someone if they were not behind the
wheel of the car. cars are inherently dangerous after all. They kill and
severely injure a lot of people every year... government needs to make
dog owners responsible for the dogs they own, and the dogs they breed.
Owners need to be charged for dog attacks and be held responsible.

In my opinion, the reason to protect pit bulls, is to stop governments
from making laws that prohibit things. Anything. Prohibiting alcohol did
nothing to make people stop drinking. Why waste tax dollars banning
things? that affects everyone, why not just punish the people who are
irresponsible.


firecat

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 10:47:36 PM8/23/05