Punish the Deed-Not the Breed?

[drummindiver]

In 2005 Dalton  McGuinty, with the help of attorney general Michael Bryant instituted Bill 132 or DOLA. 

You may not care about dogs, and that's alright. What you should care about is your constitutional rights as Canadians, because this law doesn't. 

This law allows  not only police but any peace officer  under EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES  to enter your home without a warrant. 

It also restricts your constitutional right to travel freely in Canada with your pet.

It also removes responsibility from ownership. 

 

Exigent circumstances

14. (1) Where the circumstances in clauses 13 (1) (a) and (b) exist and it would be impracticable to obtain a warrant because of exigent circumstances, a peace officer may exercise any of the powers of a peace officer described in section 13. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

 

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90d16

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[Michael Hardner]

Sounds like your main issue is the warrant.   It doesn't sound bad to me that a police officer should made a judgment for public safety and enter a property if there is reason to.

As for the law in general, I am fine with banning a breed of aggressive dog.  I have PTSD from a dog attack and pretty much hate them.  If you happen to like that breed, sorry but move elsewhere and enjoy your terror dogs somewhere where I don't live.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sounds like your main issue is the warrant.   It doesn't sound bad to me that a police officer should made a judgment for public safety and enter a property if there is reason to.

As for the law in general, I am fine with banning a breed of aggressive dog.  I have PTSD from a dog attack and pretty much hate them.  If you happen to like that breed, sorry but move elsewhere and enjoy your terror dogs somewhere where I don't live.

I agree with this.  I would ban completely certain breeds and have them sterilized out of existence.  I would also make it a crime for any pet to exist in an unsterilized state.

That said, I would punish owners harshly too.

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

Calgary used a different method of controlling aggressive dogs and has had remarkable success, reducing dog attacks by 75%, while dog population has doubled.

But it's easy and PC to simply ban a breed and, apparently, come down hard on dog-owners.   

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

As for the law in general, I am fine with banning a breed of aggressive dog.  I have PTSD from a dog attack and pretty much hate them.  

My next door neighbor has a pit-bull, and there are a few people around here who are afraid of dogs generally, and that dog in particular due to pit-bull reputation.  He tends to let the dog off-leash, which is against the rules.  I generally like my neighbor, but this just really makes me angry.   He got a hefty fine, and thinks people are 'ganging' up, but I have no sympathy.   I don't think the dog should be put down, but the owner should be fined up the ass till he learns to keep his dog on leash.  It's just part of being a good neighbor.

Also saw a news story, a couple of pit-bulls attacked an older man; it was their second attack so they are going to be put-down.   I felt very sorry for the dogs, they were clearly terrified as they were put into the van, but I support the decision to euthanize.   Past behavior is a good indication of future behavior.

A co-worker is losing her dog because he bit someone who was on their property and who admitted he was harassing the dog.   That seems terribly unfair to me.  

All the cute pics on FB, Instagram, etc, add to the problem.   Dogs are most likely to bite children and on the face; people can't read dog-body-language, don't know when their dogs are stressed or about to lose it, and put their kids, other kids and themselves in very dicey situations for a good pic.   

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

.

But it's easy and PC to simply ban a breed and, apparently, come down hard on dog-owners.   

 

Easy is a good reason to do something, if it prevents little kids and the elderly from being mauled.

I have no sympathy for Pit Bulls or their owners.  The dogs were bred for violence, and as such should be bred out of existence.

[eyeball]

Oh well, so long as the punishment is harsh and hateful...that's the important thing.

I'll never forget the time I was called to render first aid to a kid who'd been bitten by a bull type dog.  By the time I'd arrived on scene a fairly angry and emotional crowd had gathered...lots of family members and hollering back and forth. Bang went the gun moments after the cops showed up. The kid was in a fair bit of pain and shock with multiple puncture wounds on the calf of his leg but he didn't start crying until the gun went off.  He told me later he figured it was his fault he'd been bitten and that he felt worse for the dog because he didn't have a chance to explain.  He'd gotten in between a couple of dogs that had been fighting.

Edited to add; it wasn't the cops who shot the dog.

Edited December 12, 2016 by eyeball

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Oh well, so long as the punishment is harsh and hateful...that's the important thing.

I'll never forget the time I was called to render first aid to a kid who'd been bitten by a bull type dog.  By the time I'd arrived on scene a fairly angry and emotional crowd had gathered...lots of family members and hollering back and forth. Bang went the gun moments after the cops showed up. The kid was in a fair bit of pain and shock with multiple puncture wounds on the calf of his leg but he didn't start crying until the gun went off.  He told me later he figured it was his fault he'd been bitten and that he felt worse for the dog because he didn't have a chance to explain.  He'd gotten in between a couple of dogs that had been fighting.

Edited to add; it wasn't the cops who shot the dog.

As long as it gets rid of the dogs, I don't care how harsh and/or hateful it is.  I wish it could get rid of the owners too, but you know, bleeding hearts...

[Ash74]

It is pretty easy to get around the ban. All it takes is a sympathetic vet or breeder to doctor some papers. Cane courso is a much scarier breed yet is still legal to own.

German Shepherds are loved but they are very aggressive and terrible around kids.

It really does not matter what kind of dog it is what matters are the idiot owners that raise the animals. 

 

[Guest]

We could do them next.  Like I said, we can't deal properly with the owners, so we have to deal with the dogs. 

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Calgary used a different method of controlling aggressive dogs and has had remarkable success, reducing dog attacks by 75%, while dog population has doubled.

 

When I was president of Stop Canine Profiiling we put on a rally at Coronation Park in Toronto.Bill Bruce,  the man who implemented  the Calgary model was our key note speaker along with NDP MPP Cheri Dinovo.

The Calgary model is self sustaining and reduced bites. It is law your dog is on the right side od a walking path. Think how important that is when you meet a dog coming the other way..they are not able to interact. It is illegal to  tie your dog outside of a store for any amount if time.

If  BSL is working,  why arent dog bites going down in Toronto?

http://globalnews.ca/news/2527882/torontos-pit-bulls-are-almost-gone-so-why-are-there-more-dog-bites-than-ever/

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sounds like your main issue is the warrant.   It doesn't sound bad to me that a police officer should made a judgment for public safety and enter a property if there is reason to.

I'm glad you feel it ok for the law to enter without a warrant.  What if it was because they thought a muslim terrorist lived there. What if they had an inklung a  drug dealer lived there? What if you pissed off a snowflake and she  reported you to the cop on the street?

What's worse is you didn't read the post. Under exigent circumstances a peace offier. ..think dog catcher,   mailman,  you or I. ..could go in and seize a dog because of the way it looks.

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[Guest]

I think it should be always okay for the Police, or anyone for that matter, to act in a manner they believe to be necessary to ensure public safety.  A warrant should be immaterial.  Naturally, they should be able to explain themselves to the satisfaction of the authorities after the fact.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I agree with this.  I would ban completely certain breeds and have them sterilized out of existence.  I would also make it a crime for any pet to exist in an unsterilized state.

That said, I would punish owners harshly too.

So which breed and why?

[Guest]

Pit Bulls.  Dobermans.  Whatever it was that our neighbour in Surrey had,  I forget now.  Those Cane Coursos that Ash mentioned.  Lucky he did, as I'd never heard of them.  I would have let them past.

Basically, any breed that people get to make themselves look hard.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 

 

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 

All the cute pics on FB, Instagram, etc, add to the problem.   Dogs are most likely to bite children and on the face; people can't read dog-body-language, don't know when their dogs are stressed or about to lose it, and put their kids, other kids and themselves in very dicey situations for a good pic.   

Dogs who have been left on a chain are s good candidate to bite,  no matter the Breed. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

One of the main predecators for bites is a chained dog having a child entering it's space. The fault is on the owher and it parent. Thev

 

Dogs who have been left on a chain are s good candidate to bite,  no matter the Breed. 

The problem is, you can't do anything about the owners or the parents until after the fact. 

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Easy is a good reason to do something, if it prevents little kids and the elderly from being mauled.

I have no sympathy for Pit Bulls or their owners.  The dogs were bred for violence, and as such should be bred out of existence.

Only dog bred strictly for fighting is the bull terrier,  which is not even on the banned list.

There is also a substantially similar clause because there is no actual breed called pitbull.  Guess what the number one dog identidied as pitbull is? Boxer/lab mix. Hardly bred for violence.

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[Guest]

Just now, drummindiver said:

Only dog bred strictly for fighting is the bull terrier,  which is not on the banned list.

There is also a substantially similar clause because there is no actual breed called pitbull.  Guess what the number one dog identidied as pitbull is? Boxer/lab mix. Hardly bred for violence.

I would never mistake one for the other.  I meant these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

[drummindiver]

Just now, drummindiver said:

Only dog bred strictly for fighting is the bull terrier,  which is 

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The problem is, you can't do anything about the owners or the parents until after the fact. 

Which is why the emphasis should be responsible dog ownership.

Send more people to jail when their dogs kill ( remember the case in San Francisco when the Cane Corso killed aclady) andbpretty  soon you'll have no bites.

 

[drummindiver]

21 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think it should be always okay for the Police, or anyone for that matter, to act in a manner they believe to be necessary to ensure public safety.  A warrant should be immaterial.  Naturally, they should be able to explain themselves to the satisfaction of the authorities after the fact.

It doesn't bother you that under the constitution they can't legally do that? 

 

[drummindiver]

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Basically, any breed that people get to make themselves look hard.

So,  ban x number of dogs because people aree irresponsible?

Doesn't seem right

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

It doesn't bother you that under the constitution they can't legally do that? 

 

What constitution?  The Charter.  It bothers me if that's the case.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

 

Wow, 15 years to life.  I would love to see that kind of justice meted out here.

Edit> I have no idea why your quote box is empty.  It was your San Francisco comment.

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

So,  ban x number of dogs because people aree irresponsible?

Doesn't seem right

 

Dogs are less than people.  I'd love to ban the people, but it would never be allowed.

[drummindiver]

17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would never mistake one for the other.  I meant these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

The American Bulldog is not on the banned list.

Michael Bryant was shown this and asked if he could pick out the pitbull.  He could not.All in Hansord.

 

http://www.google.ca/search?q=can+you+tell+which+ine+is+the+pit+bull&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ14aO9O3QAhXC5SYKHQZHDoMQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=536#imgrc=MUgEkjBUI4gnBM%3A