home bbs files messages ]

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