Montreal just banned pit bulls.

[Doc Holliday]

Tougher regulations for owning PitBulls might be a better option than a outright ban because like many have said it all starts with the owners.

Most people using this arguement have never had a son, daughter, niece, nephew or anyone close to them ever get attacked by a pitbull. Or witnessed the damage first-hand.

I'm still 100% for a ban (and i live in a province that has already done so) and i'll go even further and say that it's a breed of dogs which should be completely radiated from the planet.

I don't disagree with the point that the owners are the problem. But the problem is that there have been many attacks where the owner had nothing to do with the dog's erratic & unpredictable behaviour.

That's why i've never called for bears to be radiated. Their behaviour is known and predictable. We are all aware they should be avoided. But the problem with pitbulls is that they are extremely unpredictable and when they do attack, their attack may often be a fatal one.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

The pit bull ban will see many good dogs destroyed. The new law says no new pit bull owners and current pit bull owners must register within one year, current owners also must not have a criminal record ( not sure what extent that is going to ). The bad ( no other word for them ) that want a vicious dog will get something else and there are some worse than a pit bull ( my brother in law had some metal dog from Brazil that had to be chained all the time when not in his house ). Just my opinion but the past pit bull attacks could have come from a variety of different dogs if the owner was the same. My friends neighbor has a Chow Chow and this dog will bite you, no doubt. Shar Pei is also a violent dog but with so few of these dogs running around it does not get noticed. The Perro De Presa Canario I would put against any dog as being one mean fucker....
Some of the above dogs will be coming into your neighborhood when the pit bulls leave.

 

[talkinghead]

STN,

To stay within the subject of the thread (sort of) some times peoples "bark" ofton doesn't measure up to the"bite"

Tougher regulations for owning PitBulls might be a better option than a outright ban because like many have said it all starts with the owners.

I've learned quite a lot about pit bulls in the last week. The controversy seems to be in part directed at single-breed bans. If I'm understanding it right, Toronto is changing its ban to include not only pit bulls but other dangerous dogs.

The Montreal ban does not ban owners from keeping their pit bulls. Again, if I'm understanding it correctly, it means that one can't now buy or adopt a pit bull. And: "The bylaw requires owners to pay higher fees for the animals than for non-pit bull types; to go through a criminal-background check; and to keep a muzzle on the dogs outside, even in fenced backyards."

Putting aside whether pit bulls are naturally (or bred to be) more aggressive--a claim that is disputed--there is at least logic behind the new law. According to the chairman of Montreal's executive committee, "since January 2015, there were 426 situations involving dog bites. Of the 362 cases in which the dogs could be identified, about half were pit bulls." And I gather that a Montreal woman was mauled and killed by a pit bull last year. In other words, whether we blame the breed or the owners, pit bulls are disproportionately involved in biting incidents. This seems to be in line with statistics from other cities. When Toronto instituted its ban on pit bulls, pit bull bites fell off the map ... though dog bites in general actually rose a bit.

I don't know if there's much interest left on this board to debate it, but it seems to me there are a few questions: 1) do the statistics (a disproportionate number of pit bull bites and maulings) suggest that there is a problem that should be addressed? 2) if owners are to blame and not the dogs, then what kinds of restrictions should be put on owning a pit bull? 3) if single-breed bans are problematic, should the ban be extended to other "dangerous" dogs?

 

[BookerL]

There is true evil out there and they need to be routed out....or allowed to live in Booker's basement.

Are you for real? I'm starting to believe that you are a fraud. Are you and Clark writing this from adjoining cells in prison?

I do understand that many can believe in archaic ways of taking care of criminals ,I was my self charged with 212 counts by the SDQ/QPP and RCMP which at least half where trumped (No pun ) and arrested many times .I have no criminal record never convicted of any crimes

I do believe in rehabilitating certain type of criminals ,I wanted to try it out for a unknown person , ,words are only words ,action that is what really counts. Would I repeat ? Maybe

Now this is just my opinion but no matter what the topic is and I mean every topic Booker has been there and done that to a higher level.

Hummm !experience in nothing?Harsh comment on everything? .Not surprised at all !Lol



Cheers




Booker

 

[BookerL]

In all fairness to BookerL I was very impressed by his posts in the "Quebec Cocaine Cowgirls" thread on those two poor drug mule girls who are now rotting in an Australian prison, from which they won't be released any time soon. I think BookerL should be hired as lead drug mule on the do-over, as I think he can take it to a higher level than the guy they used. I also think he could be enticed with high end watches and two top notch Sugar Babies who will spend 2 months sexually servicing him with duos, that is, until he and the drugs hit the port and he has to do some actual thinking and planning on how to get those drugs off the cruise ship.

Hello EB


You are a funny "Guy "most will agree
And use you as counsel ?LOL


Cheers



Booker

 

[BookerL]

Hello all


Now on the topic of dogs ,as a real estate owner ,I was involved in court cases a few times and Strata Board decisions Bylaw ,votes also .





Cheers




Booker

 

[EagerBeaver]

Hello EB


You are a funny "Guy "most will agree
And use you as counsel ?LOL


Cheers



Booker

I wasn't trying to be funny (okay maybe a little, but most people don't get my sense of humor or posting acumen anyway) but primarily this was intended to compliment you on astute analysis of the ways in which those drug mules bungled the job. If I was in the Cartel and I needed a mule for the do-over, you are my guy, 365/24/7. And yes I would order my Cartel subordinates to ply you with Rolex watches and proposed Sugar Baby duo of your choice, fully paid for care of the Cartel, to service you on the High Seas while you stash drugs in their suitcases until you can figure out a way to get the drugs off the cruise ship and into a safe boat. You just might pull it off and I would certainly put more money on you than Tamine to do so.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I've learned quite a lot about pit bulls in the last week. The controversy seems to be in part directed at single-breed bans. If I'm understanding it right, Toronto is changing its ban to include not only pit bulls but other dangerous dogs.

The Montreal ban does not ban owners from keeping their pit bulls. Again, if I'm understanding it correctly, it means that one can't now buy or adopt a pit bull. And: "The bylaw requires owners to pay higher fees for the animals than for non-pit bull types; to go through a criminal-background check; and to keep a muzzle on the dogs outside, even in fenced backyards."

Putting aside whether pit bulls are naturally (or bred to be) more aggressive--a claim that is disputed--there is at least logic behind the new law. According to the chairman of Montreal's executive committee, "since January 2015, there were 426 situations involving dog bites. Of the 362 cases in which the dogs could be identified, about half were pit bulls." And I gather that a Montreal woman was mauled and killed by a pit bull last year. In other words, whether we blame the breed or the owners, pit bulls are disproportionately involved in biting incidents. This seems to be in line with statistics from other cities. When Toronto instituted its ban on pit bulls, pit bull bites fell off the map ... though dog bites in general actually rose a bit.

I don't know if there's much interest left on this board to debate it, but it seems to me there are a few questions: 1) do the statistics (a disproportionate number of pit bull bites and maulings) suggest that there is a problem that should be addressed? 2) if owners are to blame and not the dogs, then what kinds of restrictions should be put on owning a pit bull? 3) if single-breed bans are problematic, should the ban be extended to other "dangerous" dogs?

I see another side to all of this that really hasn't been discussed in this thread and that is the economic damage and liability issues. Homeowners insurance carriers name 7 breeds of dogs that put you in a high risk insurance category. How those breeds got put in those categories is dollars and cents, nothing more nor less. They don't care about owners responsibility, they care about risk and what is the risk associated with that animal.

I have been on both sides of dogbite litigation in the USA and had more than a few cases involving pit bulls. They are unpredictable dogs. I have represented pit bull owners in litigation who told me how "wonderful" their "baby" is, what a mild mannered creature etc., this even in one case where the dog had bitten 3 people, taking a solid chunk of thigh meat out with the third bite. Various speculative theories were advanced as to why the dog "acted out", but none of it really matters. The bottom line is huge liability for medical bills by insurance carrier and cancellation of insurance policy for dog owner. And I guarantee you my client was as good a dog owner as anyone. But it didn't matter. I deal with the bottom line, and the bottom line is they cost money to owners and insurers and victims and who has to pay for that? Answer: all of us with higher insurance rates. Montreal is saying this: "let's make the dogs pay."

 

[talkinghead]

Great points, and a compelling way to define "risk."

 

[BookerL]

This almost sounds as if you are proud of this.
.

Is this a question?
It's a one word answer!


Cheers

Booker

 

[BookerL]

Is this changing the subject ?
Is this evasion?
Is this Trump tactics?

Changing the subject of your question?or questions?
In my cases dismissals by the court and or deal agreements with Crown Prosecutor for withdraw.
And it is called astute negotiations or strategies.
Maybe you should check the definition of evasion before using it ?
Was Trump ever charge with a crime ?


Concerning dogs had more problems with Rottweiller then Pitt
Bulls

A few of my tenants where attack by Rottweillers in unprovoked attacks in different circumstances by the dogs of the same tenant .

I was able to get the owner of the dog lease terminated after a trial at the Regie Du Logement .Costly trial .I do agree that sometimes cities and Provinces should have tougher laws or bylaws for unacceptable situations involving domesticated animals



Cheers

Booker

 

[BookerL]

Are you doing this out of the goodness of your heart or like the " genius " Trump....you are getting a huge tax deduction.

Hello cloudsurf

Good questions, I would have to say neither .Definitely no tax advantage and goodness ,well it did not cost me any money since it was a Dwelling that was none rental friendly ( to old and damaged) and schedule for renovation.The guest accepted it the way it was




Cheers


Booker

 

[Rod Blagojevich]

The mayor jumped the gun. He saw an opportunity to make some votes and made a move without thinking.

 

[talkinghead]

It looks like the ban has been put on hold for a few days.

 

[EagerBeaver]

It looks like the ban has been put on hold for a few days.

More on this here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37526015

 

[lgna69xxx]

It ALL starts with the owners

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9fZGEW8F90

 

[Doc Holliday]

It ALL starts with the owners

I disagree. It actually starts with the breed of dogs itself. It's not much different than if someone who raises a baby tiger or baby wolf. They look harmless at first and actually aren't that much different than other cats and dogs, but they become very unpredictable and potentially dangerous as they get older and why you can't keep them as pets.

 

[EagerBeaver]

The breed was in fact bred as a guard dog to watch cattle, this is a historical fact. Guard dogs and terriers generally are very good with their owners but naturally aggressive towards strangers because that is what a guard dog is supposed to be, watchful and vigilant and reactive. Most terriers are short tempered and tend to react to unusual stimuli emotionally. The thinking process in reacting to stimuli shuts off quicker and the emotion switch flips on in terriers much more quickly than in other dogs.

This isn't to say all pit bulls should be banned, but it's not right to say it is all on the owners. I have represented many dog owners in dogbite cases and almost all of them were very responsible owners and a bunch chose to put down their dog after it bit someone due to exactly what Doc said: unpredictability - which also bit them in their wallets.

 

[lgna69xxx]

You can disagree all you want but the video speaks for itself

I disagree. It actually starts with the breed of dogs itself. It's not much different than if someone who raises a baby tiger or baby wolf. They look harmless at first and actually aren't that much different than other cats and dogs, but they become very unpredictable and potentially dangerous as they get older and why you can't keep them as pets.

 

[talkinghead]

According to Time magazine (based on CDC and other sources), pit bulls make up about 6% of dogs in the US and Canada, but over the last 20+ years they account for nearly 70% of dog attacks and over half of dog-related deaths. These statistics are in keeping with Montreal's data--and in fact roughly aligned with all the data I've found. So whether it's the breed or the owners who are at fault, there's a problem with pit bulls.

I'm genuinely curious about this: claiming that owners are responsible for pit bull attacks is to identify a cause, not a solution. For those who blame owners, what rules would you advocate? Muzzles? Leashes at all times? Mandatory training for owners and dogs? Special registration? Merely saying that owners need to be more responsible doesn't have much ... bite. What should be done?