Boges

Well he was a threat . . . to people without guns

You don't "deem" pythons to be dangerous? Animals that, in the wild, have been known to take down crocodiles. An animal that is suspected to have silently gone from one room to another through HVAC and killed two children? It's a case of public safety. Sure there are ways people can responsibly own these animals, but I suppose there are ways people can responsibly own anything. Responsible Nuke ownership anyone? You also seem to ignore the precedent set by ecological problems caused by this animal when people can no longer care for them and get rid of them in the wild where they become invasive species. We also have already established that there is a correlation between people of questionable morals and people who want to own dangerous animals. So that itself should be a warning. You can believe what you want but governments are taking this case seriously. Ontario has already started looking into their laws on exotic snakes so something like this will be less likely to happen there.

Well it's a moral argument. I don't believe private citizens should be allowed to own any dangerous predators from the wild. They aren't looking for companionship like dogs.Why ban people from owning their own polar bear or silver back gorilla? If you disagree it's hard to debate on stats or facts as so few people own such animals. But it's my opinion.

I posted a link earlier today that reported that this snake was not being kept in the zoo, I mean store it was in the man's adjacent apartment. Also that this wasn't the first time this snake had escaped it's enclosure. If it's determined these boys were killed by this snake I'd be shocked if he doesn't dace criminal changes.

Owning a 14 foot snake in a private residence is illegal. African Rock Pythons aren't companion animals, they're solitary predators. People that want to own them likely get off on owning a dangerous wild animal.

News out today that the rail company has filed for bankruptcy. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rail-company-involved-in-megantic-disaster-files-for-bankruptcy/article13644535/ I wonder if this effects the ability of the victims to undergo legal action against the people at fault.

The crux of the letter was "why are you letting vagrants in front of your store?". He added ridiculously offensive recommendation as to getting rid of said vagrants. Apparently the liqour store did go to the police but they said they couldn't act on a threat from a 3rd party. So that's why they showed the lady the letter. One could argue the store management inflamed the stress to the lady by showing her the letter, as ignorance is bliss and the defendant never actually threatened to commit a violent act. As for the title of the thread, hyperbole was the intent but I understand they it was changed.

Which is why I initially named this thread, "Is this what Canada has come to?" He was simply making a complaint. What the company did was paramount to anyone making a complaint about someone and the company forwarding your name and contact information to the person you're complaining about. He was being very over the top and controversial in the way he made his complaint but he wasn't threatening anyone. You could argue he advocated for violence against this lady but considering he privately submitted the letter and didn't make it public, I would question that sentiment. If he has stopped at calling her fat and dumb, would it have been fine?

Breaking News on the radio says the cause of death for both children was asphyxiation according to the autopsy performed. No word on whether the children had bite marks on them.

OK provide some statistics that indicate that those dogs, especially the first 2 attack at a far greater percentage than other dogs. Total numbers don't count because retrievers are one of the most common dogs you'll find, so of course the instances of attacks will be high.

Looks like Quebec is trying to outlaw being a smug jerk. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/06/montreal-man-to-pay-8000-for-writing-diatribe-against-panhandler-outside-montreal-liquor-store/ Though he opines on killing panhandlers he doesn't actually threaten to kill pan handlers. I also find it hilariously convenient that a person that has the lack of pride to beg outside a liqour store somehow gets traumatized to the point of being a shut-in after reading about one person's distain for them. I'm not defending this man, he's an absolute A-hole. But do we really want to live in a culture where you can be fined for such behaviour. What will the lady in question think when/if she ever discovers what's said on the internet.

I've never said I support banning any breed. In fact recently I've seen people near me that have puppies that look suspiciously like Pit Bulls. Pit Bulls aren't a specific pedigree breed so that makes it more complicated. I fully concede that smaller breeds are neurotic and people gloss over their problems because they are small. It's anecdotal but in my experience with my own dog I do notice far more aggression towards my dog from these so called "power breeds". And I'm also more weary of them because I know the potential damage they can cause. Then again there's also a Jack Russell near me when I see the owner walking by, I avoid because that dog has tried to bite my dog. It's all about the owner and never the dog's fault, but I do think you're minimizing the appeal that a menacing looking dog has to a person that's only really interested in owning the dog because of fact it's a power breed. There are no rules and people should be allowed to purchase any dog they wish, it's my job as a dog owner to be aware of my dog's surroundings and take the needed precautions. In all honestly, I'm more opposed to breeds that are bred for a "look" that's unhealthy than I am, weary about power breeds. I don't support banning dogs, but going back to the OP, I support banning people owning wild animals that are apex predators.

Like the government of Ontario people? Dogs were bred for certain purposes. Some are bred to look like faceless gargoyles ei the Pug, French Bulldog, English Bulldog and the Pekingese. I'm opposed to these dogs because they were bred for their look, not for their health. It's genetic mutation. Some were bred for assisting in hunting like flushing out birds or "retrieving" birds. These are popular dogs but not dogs that should live in apartments or cities, they need constant exercise. You need to keep dogs active or they'll get bored and become troublesome. Bird Dogs like Spaniels are alright because they're relatively small and can achieve decent exercise by decent walking. Some were bred for herding cattle and sheep. There's a trend for people buying a boarder collies because it's determined to be the smartest breed or an Aussie Sheppeard (I guess cuz they have cool blue eyes). People who buy these dogs in an urban environment are also knobs. You can see these dogs in dog parks. They're genetically disposed to herd everything. They also require a great deal of exercise. And some are bred for functions like fighting, guarding or killing large game. Now here's where it gets complicated and contentious. I'll concede that good responsible dog owners can breed and raise these "fighting" breeds to be great dogs. But just like people who feel they need to own an assault rifle, people buy these dogs not because they're good companions, they buy them precisely because of their heritage as violent dogs. Is it manly for an adult male to own a Yorkie or a Pug? How bout a Rottie or a Pit Bull? Do no it's not a problem with the dog as much as the owner, but you have to ask what type of person wants a dog that has violence bred into them.

They're large dogs that should go to a capable "dog person" but I wouldn't classify a lab in the same category as Rottys, Dobermans and the famous Pit Bull. Labs are the number one breed in America so if they were that dangerous, I'd imagine you'd see a decline in their numbers. Then again another top breed is the genetic mutant known as the Bulldog, so I've lost faith in people buying dogs that fit their lifestyle and buying breeds that are "healthy". Back to the snake. There's lots of skepticism as to whether a snake can kill 2 kids relatively silently. But if it's not the snake then the story becomes a lot more sinister. As for the argument that a retail outlet with apartments upstairs can be a zoo, that maybe true, but it doesn't make it right. Here's a story in today's Sun where a reptile expert show palpable outrage over the incident. http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/06/pet-store-owner-in-shock-python-kills-two-kids-in-new-brunswick The snake wasn't in the "zoo" it was in an adjacent apartment. AND this isn't the first time the snake has apparently escaped. If I lived in any shared building like an apartment building, and I know a person in that building had a snake like this, I'd be calling animal control ASAP. If it's discovered that this snake did in fact kill these boys, a criminal charge better be in the cards.

Dogs are domesticated. They have generations of human companionship bred into them. That being said, there are breeds that shouldn't be allowed as family pets. Chimps are genetically similar to humans, doesn't mean we should be able to keep them as children.

I doubt owning an illegal animal is a criminal offense on it's own. Now if that animal kills someone you could see negligent homicide charges. We need to find out how these boys died. A snake killing and not eating it's prey is odd. The police said it fell from the ceiling, did that only kill them? Or is this murder and was the snake framed? An autopsy will provide some clarity.

I just heard on the radio that a permit was not given for owning a 100 lbs snake. It's only legal to have this breed of python in a zoo.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/06/campbellton_nb_snake_tragedy_raises_exotic_pet_concern.html Update, the snake was being held in the apartment, not the store. Also owning these breed is illegal in the maritimes. The Flipping thing was over 4 meters long and weighed over 100 lbs!!!! There is no good reason to own such an animal.

Don't be fooled, you're cat would kill and eat you if it could. It only doesn't because you feed it :-D http://www.hiloop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Cat-With-Some-Good-Advice.jpg

Well with Alcohol you definitely have that effect. But with tobacco people are smoking a lot less largely due to price, and those that don't are going to counterfeit route. People seem adamant that pot isn't addictive so if it's prohibitively priced it wouldn't be surprising to see people go the underground route or just not smoke pot. Of course it being illegal hasn't really stopped anyone.

Interestingly for all those Election reform people out there, the PCs are saying these byelections were a success because they received the most votes "total" last Thursday even though they only won one seat. The PCs only finished 2 points behind the Liberals in the 2011 election but the Liberals only came one seat short of a majority. I'm not a big election reform advocate but you could look at the Ontario PCs as an example as to why we need election reform. Wait they're conservative, no one cares.

Responsible ownership is the same logic you hear from gun owners. I should own a gun that was designed specifically to efficiently kill humans, in a military setting, because I'm "responsible". I should be able to own an animal that has moved to the top of the food chain by being able to efficiently kill other animals because I'm "responsible".

I'm sure many can but keeping wild animals is fraught with problems, they aren't as easily tamed as dogs, cats or horses who have human companionship bred into them. See the problems pythons have caused in Florida because of owners who aren't responsible.