Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.pets.dogs.misc    |    All other topics, chat, humor, etc    |    8,070 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 7,878 of 8,070    |
|    Dale Atkin to All    |
|    Re: Attacked by Pit Bull - GET RID OF TH    |
|    31 Mar 08 02:57:22    |
      XPost: rec.pets.dogs.breeds, rec.pets.dogs.behavior       From: labrador1@ibycus.com              >>> Pit Bulls need to be at minimum, baned from cities, probably suburbs       >>> as well and just be country/farm dogs where the only people and       >>> animals they can attack and kill is their owners and their owners       >>> other pets.              A couple of comments for you. I'm sure its already been said in other       posts....but.              I know quite a number of Pit Bulls. Not a one of them is dangerous. I far       more small dogs than big dogs that I would classify as dangerous (i.e.       likely to draw blood).              Even *if* you conclude that Pit Bulls need to be banned, how do you intend       to enforce the law. How do you identify a dog as a Pit Bull. The Ontario Law       calls a pit bull, any dog of Breed X, Y, Z or one substantially resembling       X, Y, Z.       On who should the onus be to prove a dog is a "Pit Bull". What about a dog       that is 1/8th of a 'pit breed'. What about a dog that looks like a pit bull,       but has no relation to them? I've had a number of people comment to me that       my (pure bred) lab looks like he's got some pit bull in him. If he was a       mixed breed, and pit bulls were banned, would I be in trouble? Would I have       to proove that he wasn't a pit bull? This seems counter to the principle       that most people believe underlies the legal system --- innocent until       proven guilty. Other than a pure bred dog, how *can* you proove that your       dog isn't a particular breed anyways?       If enacting a breed ban against a particular breed were likely to solve the       problem of dangerous dogs without too much collateral damage, then I'd be       all for it. The fact of the matter it won't. From       http://www.theblackpaper.org/ (interesting read if you have time)              "there [is] no region which could prove a reduction in the number, or       severity, of dog bites as the result of banning one or more dog breeds."              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca