The mother of a young girl attacked by a pit bull traded tough words with animal rights activists on the first day of a public hearing on a proposed Ontario-wide ban of the dog breed.
Louise Ellis, whose daughter was five when she was attacked in 1994, is urging politicians not to bow to pressure from animal-rights activists, who are against the ban.
"Unless you have witnessed an attack by a pit bull, you can't possibly understand the severity of the attack," Ellis told the committee holding the inquiry.
The room fell silent when Ellis painfully described the wound on her daughter's face that required 300 stitches and numerous operations to repair the damage.
"The damage to her face was horrible. The beast left a gaping hole just under the eye so deep you could see the little bones in her face."
Despite the emotional testimony from Ellis, some say a breed-specific ban will give the public a false sense of security. They suggest the real problem is irresponsible dog owners.
"Am I against dogs? Not in any way," said Donna Trempe, whose daughter Courtney was killed by a bull mastiff in 1998.
"I love dogs and have a German Shepherd. What I am against is irresponsible dog owners," Trempe told CTV.
Ontario's Attorney General Michael Bryant said these hearings are the most widespread public consultation involving a dog ban in Canada's history.
The hearings begin just days after a four-year-old Ottawa boy was attacked by three pit bulls.
Bryant said the breed is known for the viciousness of its attacks, and need to be stopped.
But animal rights activist Cathy Prothro argued: "These are not good enough reasons for the targetted extermination of a type of dog."
"For this type of racial profiling, it amounts to nothing more than canine ethnic cleansing."
Ellis says she'll never be convinced the ban is a bad idea.
"The animal rights activists will try to tell you that pit bulls don't harm people, pits bull owners harm people," Ellis said, choking back tears.
"Well lord how I wish the owner had bitten my child instead of his dog. The wound would have been far less severe."
The public hearings opened Monday morning at Queen's Park.
Bryant introduced legislation in October following several high-profile attacks on humans and other dogs.
The legislation would prohibit breeding pit bulls and future purchases and imports of the dogs.
In order to protect existing pit bulls from a mass cull, a grandfather clause is included in the legislation that would require pit bulls to be muzzled and leashed in public.
As well, the legislation would double the maximum fine to $10,000 for owners of "any dangerous dog" that attacks, and for the first time allows for jail time of up to six months.
Several breeders have hired lawyer Clayton Ruby to launch a constitutional challenge against a pit bull ban should it become law.
"People who are determined to have vicious dogs change from one breed to another, so you can't solve the problem this way," Ruby told CTV.
Veterinarians, breeders and owners say similar bans in other provinces, as well as in the US and in Europe, haven't worked.
Natalie Kemeny of Advocates for the Underdog said a breed ban introduced in Windsor caused more problems than it's solved. She says more dogs have been euthanized in the wake of the bylaw while dog attacks from other breeds continue.
So who will win this fight?
Personaly i wish they made a list of fucktards who buy dogs on their agressive reputation.
Jerry Orbach 1935 2004 Admiral Valdemar~You know you've fucked up when Wacky Races has more realistic looking vehicles than your own.
Owners of dogs who maul or kill people should be charged as if they did it themselves with a deadly weapon. Also, threatening someone with a dog should be treated just like threatening him with a weapon, which is already an offense.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
But animal rights activist Cathy Prothro argued: "These are not good enough reasons for the targetted extermination of a type of dog."
"For this type of racial profiling, it amounts to nothing more than canine ethnic cleansing."
Ooooh. My bullshit sense is tingling. How the fuck is eliminating a breed of dog equivalent to "racial profiling" and "ethnic cleansing", terms that were coined for and are only applied to humans? Dog breeding affects the animal's psychology and behaviour, and it is entirely plausible that a particular breed can "go bad" due to irresponsible breeding practices to an extent that salvaging the breed is impractical or uncertain. Once again, animal rights activists are assigning human-level rights to non humans.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
Darth Wong wrote:Owners of dogs who maul or kill people should be charged as if they did it themselves with a deadly weapon.
No; a weapon is 100% predictable, while a dog isn't. Some dogs just snap for no apparent reason; weapons don't.
Nonetheless, dog owners are responsible for their dogs. If not they, then who?
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
Darth Wong wrote:Owners of dogs who maul or kill people should be charged as if they did it themselves with a deadly weapon.
No; a weapon is 100% predictable, while a dog isn't. Some dogs just snap for no apparent reason; weapons don't.
Even more reason to be strict with dog owners. They are deliberately introducing an unpredictable and possibly dangerous entity into an environment where it might harm people. All the more reason for them to control their dogs and avoid the use of the more physically intimidating and dangerous variety (after all, even if my dog went apeshit, what the fuck would he do? Scratch your knee?)
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Actualy, my bullshit detector was going off at the mother's testimony. To be clear, I do not doubt that the wounds suffered were terrible but her telling just makes it seem like she's been pulling out this hysterical mother routine on the dime for the last ten years in order to either a. force something she realy believes in or b. get attention. Her comments about dog owners and activists seem entirely too prepared to create sobbing mother soundbites. Also, A dog breed reputed for agressiveness means that dogs of that breed take more quickly to that sort of training, it is still the owner's responsibility to train them in a way that will make them behave appropriately in society. I know training is not perfect, and sometimes you just get bad dogs, (I've certainly met a few) but they should be dealt with on a case by case basis, not the categorical banning of a breed. Owner's responsibility.
Post 666: Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:51 am
Post 777: Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:49 pm
Post 999: Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:19 am
I would be willing to bet that the very same people who don't want pitbulls and other dangerous breeds banned would go even more apeshit at my suggestion that they actually be held responsible for the acts their dogs commit, so I don't think "owner's responsibility" is going to fly as a substitute for banning dangerous dog breeds.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
no, why deal with the problem responsibly when we can just tell people what choices they can and can't make? A person is responsible for their actions and the actions of the entities in their care. However you may regard them in terms of inteligence or personality, a dog is still a lesser animal subject to the training and commands of its master. If that master does not use/supervise/care for the animal properly, the master is at fault. The owners may not want to hear it, but they are still responsible.
Post 666: Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:51 am
Post 777: Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:49 pm
Post 999: Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:19 am
But animal rights activist Cathy Prothro argued: "These are not good enough reasons for the targetted extermination of a type of dog."
"For this type of racial profiling, it amounts to nothing more than canine ethnic cleansing."
Ooooh. My bullshit sense is tingling. How the fuck is eliminating a breed of dog equivalent to "racial profiling" and "ethnic cleansing", terms that were coined for and are only applied to humans?
Darth Wong wrote:I would be willing to bet that the very same people who don't want pitbulls and other dangerous breeds banned would go even more apeshit at my suggestion that they actually be held responsible for the acts their dogs commit, so I don't think "owner's responsibility" is going to fly as a substitute for banning dangerous dog breeds.
What if a little boy jumps his neighbours fence to get his tennis ball, then gets killed by the neighbours dog. Would the owner be responsible?
A ban on a specific race of dogs is just a way to show the popluace "We're doing something" (TM).
While some dog races have a slight disposition for violence, that doesn't mean they will attack people and that other dog races won't.
It would make more sense to have all dog owners of sufficiently large dogs (a Yorkshire terrier is hardly a danger to anyone...) make some kind of "dog licence", so they show they can handle the dog.
It is amazing how clueless dog owners can be about the ways dogs naturally react and how they should be treated/educated.
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
BoredShirtless wrote:
No; a weapon is 100% predictable, while a dog isn't. Some dogs just snap for no apparent reason; weapons don't.
Nonetheless, dog owners are responsible for their dogs. If not they, then who?
Sure, they are responsible. But not to the same degree if a gun was used in the killing.
He's evn more responsible.
In case of a gun, it is just an object and the person using it has only responsibility for himself, so to speak. In case of a dog, he is not only responsible for himself, but for the dog as well.
Guns don't kill people when being left alone. You can't switch off a dog when you're not around...
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
If you own a large dog, you are completely responible for it. Indeed you might be the only one who can control it. My thought is that you should make an effort to fucking understand what you have running in your backyard. A large, territoral carnivore with pack intincts. The reason it's so nice to you and happy to see you is that you are Alpha of it's pack, the boss, the literial big dog.
Having a large dog, like a dobermen, pitbull, German Shepard, etc is a responiblity, not training it or at least containing it (if you can't be sure, then don't let it run in the yard without supervision) is negilent. It's has bad has leaving a fully loaded gun in an elementary school playground, you are asking for trouble.
In my experience, only a very small number of owners even really verbally train these dangerous animals. Although, I probably have my well-being to thank for the very small number who could keep their animals on a verbal leash. That is not much of a consolation.
Dahak wrote:Guns don't kill people when being left alone. You can't switch off a dog when you're not around...
More over, guns don't get "loose" and prowl suburban streets, and oh boy if there's a grade school nearby. At least the high schools and American society in general have regressed to the point that high schoolers may very well be armed against such a threat [/quote]
My mum was once attacked by a Dalmatian that wasn't kept on a leash; You can still see the scars, although they're silver now. My neighbours used to keep 2 dogs. 1 of them ate the other; They still have it although my dad had to hit it on the head with a 2-by-4 to get it off our dogs once.
All of this was undoubtedly owner negligence, but it's also got to do with the dogs; There are certain breeds of dogs which are nigh-feral and I have no problem with eliminating them.
Ironically, out of my 2 dogs it's my itty bitty Dachshund who scares the shit out of everybody and the most she could do is give someone a circumcision, while (in her day) my big dog could comfortably remove your head and swallow it whole.
Darth Wong wrote:I would be willing to bet that the very same people who don't want pitbulls and other dangerous breeds banned would go even more apeshit at my suggestion that they actually be held responsible for the acts their dogs commit,
Actually I'm sure they'll honestly be all for it. That is until it's their dog that does the biting, then you can expect excuses like stink on shit.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
Lord Zentei wrote:
Nonetheless, dog owners are responsible for their dogs. If not they, then who?
Sure, they are responsible. But not to the same degree if a gun was used in the killing.
He's evn more responsible.
In case of a gun, it is just an object and the person using it has only responsibility for himself, so to speak. In case of a dog, he is not only responsible for himself, but for the dog as well.
Guns don't kill people when being left alone. You can't switch off a dog when you're not around...
Yes, the owner has more responsibility because he needs to look after an unpredictable dog as opposed to a predictable gun; but if the owner kills with a gun, we all know he was 100% responsible. With a dog, he may not be. Although he could have trained the dog to attack people [more or less a gun on legs], sometimes dogs just snap and attack for no reason. Guns can't do that. So in the snapping case, some of the blame goes with the dog.
There are certain breeds of dogs which are nigh-feral and I have no problem with eliminating them.
Bro, you can train a wolf if you get it young it enough. I've seen damn well trained pitbulls and near feral toy dogs. It's all on the owner.
Eh, that needed more clarification. In certain places a dog breed can be inbred until they're just not safe to be around. This was one of those dogs.
Rogue 9 wrote:One ate the other? Damn, that must have been one hungry dog to actually prey on another predator...
I never saw them feed it. Admittedly, the other one was one of those tiny, fluffy, neurotic little toy dogs which always yapped and repeatedly tried to mount the aforesaid one. I would've killed the little shit.
BoredShirtless wrote:Yes, the owner has more responsibility because he needs to look after an unpredictable dog as opposed to a predictable gun; but if the owner kills with a gun, we all know he was 100% responsible. With a dog, he may not be. Although he could have trained the dog to attack people [more or less a gun on legs], sometimes dogs just snap and attack for no reason. Guns can't do that. So in the snapping case, some of the blame goes with the dog.
*the clouds part with rays of sun light beaming through, you hear a deep powerful voice*
[God]Use a leash[/God]
*the clouds reform, you feel touched in a most spiritual of way*
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
-- Asuka
[/quote]
Damn, that must have been one hungry dog to actually prey on another predator...