Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Kitty Hawk

Dogs Outlawed In Canada

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Pit bulls, to be specific. The province of Ontario is banning the buying or raising of pit bulls. People who own them already may keep them, but must have them spayed or neutered, and they must be muzzled. Here's a link to the story: Pit Bull Ban

I realize pit bulls are a breed that are often in the news for attacking people and causing harm. But are they really so ferocious they have to be banned, like Bengal Tigers? Are Bengal Tigers even banned?

Isn't it more a matter of how the dog is raised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules like this exist in parts of the US too. Yes, how the dog is raised is important, but some breeds are naturally much more aggressive than others. Anyway, I don't agree with bans like this; all we need to do is hold owners responsible for whatever their pets do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bans aren't a good idea, but maybe greater punishments for owners when their Pit Bulls do attack. I agree that it's how the dog is raised (I had a Dobermann that was like a lamb), but it seems that Pit Bulls have are more aggressive than, say, my Pugs. Also, because the jaws lock it's difficult to get a Pit Bull off you when it does attack. Maybe treating it like a gun: you have a right to have them for self defense, life, pleasure, etc., but when a crime is committed with one you should be held liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an Australian Cattle Dog ( Blue Heeler ) when I was younger that would chase and try to bite anything that moved. Bird, Squirrel, Jogger it made no difference. He was raised on a farm where he could do whatever he wanted and then moved to the city. Blue Heelers are bred to chase and herd cattle in Australia so chasing things and nipping at heels comes naturally to them. Maybe if a certain line of Pit Bulls is bred to attack humans that makes them an unsafe animal to own, thats a good question. I don't think its legal to own "wild" animals in most cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rules like this exist in parts of the US too. Yes, how the dog is raised is important, but some breeds are naturally much more aggressive than others. Anyway, I don't agree with bans like this; all we need to do is hold owners responsible for whatever their pets do.

Holding owners responsible. How would that work? Suppose the dog kills a small child. What is the dog owner's responsiblity in such a case? Ayn Rand said that the punishment should fit the crime - should the death penalty apply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Israel they just outlawed Amstaffs - after two children died from their bite.

I don't think the owner of the dog should receive the death penalty - but he should certainly serve many years in prison. Even, as was the case in Israel, that person is actually the parent of the killed child.

That would put an end to irresponssible dog owners letting their murderous dogs loose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But are they really so ferocious they have to be banned, like Bengal Tigers?  Are Bengal Tigers even banned?

Isn't it more a matter of how the dog is raised?

No, it's not all learning with dogs. Akitas are cat killers, my type loves to run for miles, retrievers like to retrieve. One difference with tigers is that everybody knows they are killers, and we all know we should shoot them on sight. That makes dangerous dogs more dangerous: they are generally socialized with humans so they don't have an instinctive fear of you, and you don't know that they are dangerous (I'm very friendly, of course).

Owning a pit bull is like culturing your own ebola for fun. The owner should take personal responsibility for any damage that results, and you cannot legitimately use the excuse "Well, gosh, I never expected this to happen!", if the beast kills the child next door. This would fall in the category of criminal negligence, because you should know that pit bulls are a potential danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holding owners responsible.  How would that work?  Suppose the dog kills a small child.  What is the dog owner's responsiblity in such a case?  Ayn Rand said that the punishment should fit the crime - should the death penalty apply?

See DO's reply above. The owner's crime would not be murder, but criminal negligence. The penalty would depend somewhat on how the dog was trained, how it was controlled, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Israel they just outlawed Amstaffs - after two children died from their bite.

I don't think the owner of the dog should receive the death penalty - but he should certainly serve many years in prison. Even, as was the case in Israel, that person is actually the parent of the killed child.

That would put an end to irresponssible dog owners letting their murderous dogs loose.

You don't think the death penalty applies, because???????? You must have a reason, and you would not express an arbitrary.

I don't think dogs are 'murderous,' dogs bite, it is their nature - what dogs are, determines what they ought to do. If murder has occurred, it is the dog owner who is at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If murder has occurred, it is the dog owner who is at fault.

If a dog kills a person, it isn't murder. If a tree that you own accidentally falls on a person and kills them, even if you could have prevented it, it is not murder. On the other hand if you sic a dog (or a tree) on a person with the intent to kill, that would be murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you all that these "dogs" are not pets they are attack animals. I was bit by one, I got lucky, i didn't loose my leg.

The stupid creature misjudged where my leg was in my loose work slacks and didn't get in a bite before i had a chance to react.

The owner of this beast was a 90 pound female that the foul creature dragged straight to me. She didn't even have the decency to worn me the dog was coming. One minute i was standing in the parking lot of my apartment moving things around in the truck of my car, the next there was a pit bull on my leg.

It bit me just below the knee on the back side.

The lady the apologized profusely and said it was a nice "dog" and it had never bitten before. At this point her husband/boyfriend/brother/whatever came outside and dragged the animal inside.

I called the cops and fill out a complaint and demanded that the beast be destroyed. I was politely informed that in NY all "dogs" get one free bite and that i could not press charges.

300 dollars of medical bills later and 2 years of healing and i still have a scar and congealed blood under the surface of my leg.

Don't tell me these animals should not be ban. We do not allow people to walk around with grenades with the pin removed, we do not allow people to have lions/tigers/bears as pets. There is a line where you have to say no, Pit bulls are over that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can tell you all that these "dogs" are not pets they are attack animals.  I was bit by one, I got lucky, i didn't loose my leg.

(snipped)

300 dollars of medical bills later and 2 years of healing and i still have a scar and congealed blood under the surface of my leg.

Don't tell me these animals should not be ban.  We do not allow people to walk around with grenades with the pin removed, we do not allow people to have lions/tigers/bears as pets.  There is a line where you have to say no, Pit bulls are over that line.

I agree with you that you were wrongfully injured, and that the dog owner is liable, but the NY law apparently considers the matter a civil one, and your only recourse is to sue. This is an injustice, and NY needs to correct the laws, because the incident, as you describe it, is clearly assault with a deadly weapon, and that is a crime in most states, and when a crime is committed, the guilty have to pay, and pay.

All dogs bite. And this is not anything wrong against dogs, it is simply the nature of a dog. But knowing that dogs bite makes it illogical to have a dog as a pet - dogs should be recognized as the weapon they are, and used accordingly, and everyone has the right to bear arms (defend himself).

The right to defend one's self does not allow anyone to endanger innocent bystanders, and reasonable care is used with firearms, and knives, and etc., therefore, the same reasonable care should be used with dogs which are used as a means of self defense......and this reasonable care apparently was not used by the dog owner whose dog bit you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inquisitor80: I do hope you filed a civil suit. Seems open and shut.

All dogs bite.  And this is not anything wrong against dogs, it is simply the nature of a dog.  But knowing that dogs bite makes it illogical to have a dog as a pet - dogs should be recognized as the weapon they are, and used accordingly, and everyone has the right to bear arms (defend himself). 

Um, what? A little nipping is normal, biting that breaks the skin is not. My dog has never drawn blood. There is nothing wrong with having a dog as a pet--even a pit bull--as long as it is properly trained and controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortuneitly i had no opertunity to sue them. They move like a week latter, besides they where trash and nothing to their names. Also if the "dog" is allowed one free bite by the state what basis would the lawsuit be on?

the same reasonable care should be used with dogs which are used as a means of self defense......and this reasonable care apparently was not used by the dog owner whose dog bit you.

The problem is that this female that was holding the leash was unable to anything the beast because it was stronger than her. She would have needed a cattle-prod to keep the animal from coming right for me. This is the equivalant of playing catch with a hand grenade, with the pin removed.

What really made me mad was that the cop said had i injured the dog in the course of the attack it would have been fine, but now that it is over there wasn't anything that i could do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All dogs bite.  And this is not anything wrong against dogs, it is simply the nature of a dog.  But knowing that dogs bite makes it illogical to have a dog as a pet - dogs should be recognized as the weapon they are, and used accordingly, and everyone has the right to bear arms (defend himself). 

The right to defend one's self does not allow anyone to endanger innocent bystanders, and reasonable care is used with firearms, and knives, and etc., therefore, the same reasonable care should be used with dogs which are used as a means of self defense......and this reasonable care apparently was not used by the dog owner whose dog bit you.

roscov6,

This is obviously an emotional issue for you! So much so that I think you are being a little irrational.

Dogs do bite, but men do murder. Using your logic that would make it "illogical" for women to have men as husbands!

In fact I have not yet been able to eat an apple without biting, so I guess I should be on the look-out for the euthenasia needle myself?

The problem is in the breed of dog and the type (breed) of person that owns those breeds. I haven't yet met a Pit Bull owner that I would invite to my house for dinner. The majority of PB owners I see seem to have them as some sort of perverted status symbol. Though I am sure that there are lots of nice PB owners around (somewhere) and lots of nice PBs too.

The highest incidence of dog bites is from black labradors ( according to my niece, the vetinarian). But most people assume that if a lab bit them it was either a mistake, over-enthusiasm and ignore it because they don't beleive a lab bites with malice.

One of my dogs has a glove fetish, to the extent that he will try to remove peoples gloves from their hands. To any one who is scared of dogs, or doesn't know Nigel (who is a certified therapy dogs and who visits severely handicapped children in a nursing home) this can be quite intimidating. But there is absolutely no malicious intent in his body.

In fact dogs growl and bare their teeth and posture much more than they bite. And when they bite there are several types of bite, some are warnings others are lethal and there are several stages in between. Just like there are many growls and many postures, which an observant owner can easily come to recognise. The problem is that most people do not know enough to understand these signs and do not know what to do about them. And I fear this is especially so among owners of some of the supposedly "problem" breeds.

The simple, best, but still unfortunate solution is to ban the breed, as we did in Ontario. But this will last for as long as it takes for some unscrupulous breeder to breed aggression back in to a line of Staffordshire Bull Terriers or English Bull Terriers or Miniature Poodles or Mexican Hairless. Or into a particularly viscious line of Hampster!

If "guns don't kill people" a la Reagan, then I would have to give dogs the benefit of the doubt too!

Brent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent: I've met a few nice PBs and PB owners. Unfortunately as you say they have become status dogs. The highest incidence of dog bites may be from black labs simply because that is the most popular breed; what is the incidence per 1000 of each breed?

Unfortuneitly i had no opertunity to sue them.  They move like a week latter, besides they where trash and nothing to their names.  Also if the "dog" is allowed one free bite by the state what basis would the lawsuit be on?

The "one free bite" is criminal law. Civil law is different; you sue on the basis that you suffered damages, regardless of what the criminal law says. For example, if you commit a murder but somehow win the criminal trial you can still be civilly sued by the victim's relatives and lose.

What really made me mad was that the cop said had i injured the dog in the course of the attack it would have been fine, but now that it is over there wasn't anything that i could do about it.

Yup; too bad you did not have a tire iron handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...