Canadian Politics Redux

lukin2006 · October 2016

unsung said:
Any discussion on the idiots in Montreal banning pitbulls?

None here, they've been banned in Ontario...

PJ_Soul · October 2016

unsung said:
Any discussion on the idiots in Montreal banning pitbulls?

I don't think there are very many people around here who are from Quebec ... the has been plenty of national coverage, but not terribly in depth coverage. The ban has been suspended by a judge temporarily though. No idea how long that is supposed to last or what's possibly going to happen during that suspension. But it's not like this is a Canadian first. There are a lot of cities/municipalities across the country that have their own bans or restrictions on pitbulls. It's big news this time because it's such a major population centre, but also because it seems they took it a step too far this time as far as enforcement goes (let alone the general controversy around the issue that we all know about).

lukin2006 · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:
Any discussion on the idiots in Montreal banning pitbulls?
I don't think there are very many people around here who are from Quebec around here... the has been plenty of national coverage, but not terribly in depth coverage. The ban has been suspended by a judge temporarily though. No idea how long that is supposed to last or what's possibly going to happen during that suspension. But it's not like this is a Canadian first. There are a lot of cities/municipalities across the country that have their own bans or restrictions on pitbulls. It's big news this time because it's such a major population centre, but also because it seems they took it a step too far this time as far as enforcement goes (let alone the general controversy around the issue that we all know about).

I just saw on the CBC news that a hearing is scheduled today into whether the bylaw banning pit bulls will be allowed to stand...so more be known by days end...maybe.

unsung · October 2016

I've seen a lot of people posting on social media about driving over to rescue them.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

unsung said:
I've seen a lot of people posting on social media about driving over to rescue them.

Yeah, the reason it's big news when all the other local bans haven't been over the years is because the suddenness of the enforcement they decided upon is fucked and will presumably lead to putting some of the dogs down just because of new ban. Normally such efforts in Canada haven't lead to such a dramatic kind of enforcement. FWIW, while of course I don't support anything that leads to killing dogs or making them suffer, I do 100% acknowledge that the breed attracts the wrong kinds of owner en masse. I know, I know. There all kinds of great pitbull owners. But that doesn't erase the fact that the breed tends to draw the types who aren't good enough owners for pitbulls. And the only way I can see that trend ending is through breeding bans, and making the breed unavailable to people. However, I absolutely don't support any kind of regulations that are retroactive. No law should force people to surrender their dogs. I just wouldn't mind humane efforts to stem the availability of the breed going forward. Of course I accept that this is much more easily said than done because it could just grow an illegal breeding market, which would be horrible. BTW, I strongly oppose muzzle laws. I think it is better to phase out the breed than to go forward with muzzle enforcement. I think muzzles are cruel.

lukin2006 · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:
I've seen a lot of people posting on social media about driving over to rescue them.
Yeah, the reason it's big news when all the other local bans haven't been over the years is because the suddenness of the enforcement they decided upon is fucked and will presumably lead to putting some of the dogs down just because of new ban. Normally such efforts in Canada haven't lead to such a dramatic kind of enforcement. FWIW, while of course I don't support anything that leads to killing dogs or making them suffer, I do 100% acknowledge that the breed attracts the wrong kinds of owner en masse. I know, I know. There all kinds of great pitbull owners. But that doesn't erase the fact that the breed tends to draw the types who aren't good enough owners for pitbulls. And the only way I can see that trend ending is through breeding bans, and making the breed unavailable to people. However, I absolutely don't support any kind of regulations that are retroactive. No law should force people to surrender their dogs. I just wouldn't mind humane efforts to stem the availability of the breed going forward. Of course I accept that this is much more easily said than done because it could just grow an illegal breeding market, which would be horrible. BTW, I strongly oppose muzzle laws. I think it is better to phase out the breed than to go forward with muzzle enforcement. I think muzzles are cruel.

agreed, phase out the breed...poor owners make this a dangerous animal, very dangerous...

dignin · October 2016

Start holding these shitty dog owners more responsible. If their dog hurts or kills someone and they are negligent, they should be held criminally responsible. Serious criminal charges too, like assault and manslaughter.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

dignin said:
Start holding these shitty dog owners more responsible. If their dog hurts or kills someone and they are negligent, they should be held criminally responsible. Serious criminal charges too, like assault and manslaughter.

I think that seems quite a bit too late to be taking action. The types who raise viscous pitbulls wouldn't respond to this kind of tactic, so it wouldn't prevent any injuries or deaths. If anything, it would encourage these people to get a pit bull. The stronger the penalties, the more "badass" they're probably going to view the breed, which is why these idiots are attracted to the breed in the first place. This is why I think the only real solution to preventing these devastating attacks (due to the damage pitbulls can inflict) is phasing out the breed. Don't make it an option for people (without killing or harming any dogs of course). Then all these problems go away.

dignin · October 2016

I agree that this breed and others need to go the way of the dodo bird, my comment would be just part of a solution. I have no idea if serious jail time would be a deterrent or not, would just like to think it would.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

dignin said:
I agree that this breed and others need to go the way of the dodo bird, my comment would be just part of a solution. I have no idea if serious jail time would be a deterrent or not, would just like to think it would.

The reason I don't think it would be is because no pit bull owner will admit, even to themselves, that their dog will lose control and be one of the ones that tears someone's face off. All pit bulls owners, no matter how bad (excluding dog fighters I guess), will tell you that they've got their dog under control and that they are a good owner. Obviously many of them are or are potentially very wrong, but they don't think so. So with that belief, a sentencing deterrent would be seen by them as irrelevant (aside from the "badass" appeal factor).

Drowned Out · October 2016

They didn't ban pit bulls....they banned 'pit bull type dogs'.
Can't see how anything could go wrong with a law so loosely defined. Up to 30 breeds have the characteristics used to define bully-type breeds. Some dog owners inquiring whether their pets were affected were told a vet cert would suffice, others were told they need DNA testing.
The city's lawyer literally used the 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck' line in an interview.
Total crock of shit.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

Drowned Out said:
They didn't ban pit bulls....they banned 'pit bull type dogs'.
Can't see how anything could go wrong with a law so loosely defined. Up to 30 breeds have the characteristics used to define bully-type breeds. Some dog owners inquiring whether their pets were affected were told a vet cert would suffice, others were told they need DNA testing.
The city's lawyer literally used the 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck' line in an interview.
Total crock of shit.

Yeah, true. That's pretty fucked up as well. Talk about a poorly made law. Were they hungover when they drew it up?

lukin2006 · October 2016

See drunk = poor decisions...lol

lukin2006 · October 2016

Judge suspends Montreal's pit bull ban

http://montrealgazette.com/storyline/judge-suspends-montreals-pit-bull-ban

In his ruling, Gouin said elements of the bylaw pertaining to the categorization of “pit bull-type dogs” are unclear. For that reason, the temporary suspension he ordered on Monday will remain in effect.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · October 2016

unsung said:
Any discussion on the idiots in Montreal banning pitbulls?

A good call.

A few children have had their faces chewed off and they finally figured that was enough children getting their faces chewed off.

Too much dog for many simple bastards to try and raise responsibly. In general, people are too stupid and too inept to carry such a responsibility responsibly. Pomeranians and chihuahaus are nice pets. I know they don't increase the size of your pecker, but they're loving, cute and offer people household companionship all the same without having to worry about your beast shredding a child or eating an old lady.

Drowned Out · October 2016

blatant trolling, but I'll take the bait....
We are all aware of your history with dogs…..it sucks, but constantly throwing around generalizations about bully breed owners and making off the cuff statements about what constitutes a good pet and what doesn’t makes it pretty tough to take you seriously.
People don’t have dogs as pets for the sole purpose of being a lap dog. Haven’t seen many pom guard dogs, hunting dogs, hiking companions, herders etc….not to mention personal preference for or against certain traits.
Funny you mention chihuahuas....they have possibly the worst temperament of any breed. oh, but their bite doesn't do much damage right? Sure...but they are far from loving when compared to other dogs, and while cute is in the eye of the beholder, I don't define them that way...esp not compared to some of the breeds you want banned.
I’m curious which breeds those would be? Is a Rottweiler a pit-bull-type-dog in your estimation? How about a boxer? Mastiff? Bull terrier? How about any of the above, if mixed with a lab? What percentage of lab genes would they need to spare them from being banned? German shepherds aren’t a bully breed but have a pretty spotty history of attacks, should we support doggy genocide against them?
The problem with these laws, as mentioned above (and ignored), is that they are based on blood lines, so almost impossible to clearly define and enforce.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

I think how much damage a dog can do when it attacks is an EXTREMELY relevant factor.

Drowned Out · October 2016

Ok....so....where does that leave us? Will you ban based on individual bite psi? Or breed average bite psi?

PJ_Soul · October 2016

Drowned Out said:
Ok....so....where does that leave us? Will you ban based on individual bite psi? Or breed average bite psi?

Not individual, obviously. I think at some point generalizations need to be made, so sure, breed average makes sense IMO. Someone just needs to be bright enough to pick a reasonable limit.

Drowned Out · October 2016

Still way too simplified. We'd be banning bulldogs and pretty much all giant breeds regardless of temperament.
And again...how do you determine an acceptable percentage of genetic composition for the law, and for individual dogs without dna testing?
There is no just way to ban a breed. I'm onboard for increased regulation, especially of breeders... But be ready for a lot of legal challenges and either exorbitant enforcement costs, or a total lack of enforcement.

Canadian Politics Redux

Comments

Categories