Re: [PyrNet-L] Debate

["Warrick Wilson" <warrick.wilson@virtek.ca>]

Donna,

Our city passed a Pit Bull bylaw about a year ago, partly as a reaction to
several attacks.  At one point, there was also a proposed bylaw that any dog
over 40 pounds that was outside had to be muzzled.  While I don't condone
people training their dogs to be vicious (as opposed to training protection
dogs), nor do I appreciate dogs running loose, I have a hard time accepting
a ban based on breed alone.

I had a semi-facetious suggestion at the time:  Review the records on
traffic accidents, and identify the make of car involved in the most
accidents.  Ban those cars within the city limits.  Why?  Because each
accident that these cars have requires fire, ambulance and/or police
personnel to come out, and that costs a lot of money.  Obviously, by
preventing these cars from operating within the city limits, we will
eliminate the problem.  And we could gradually expand that to result in more
savings and fewer injuries and insurance claims...

A further example:  Millions, if not billions, of dollars each year are
spent on caring for people who have cancer as a result of smoking.  Try
banning smoking with the argument that it saves lives.  There was a
tremendous hullabaloo up here when Toronto passed a bylaw that banned
smoking in public places, and permitted it only in designated areas.

My worry about a breed-specific ban is that it becomes the "wedge" that is
later used to justify ever increasing restrictions.  As someone with big
dogs, I fear that one day I'll be either prohibited from keeping such a
large dog in the city, or that I'll basically be forced to take my dog in
public only when he's shackled and muzzled.  The trickiest part up here was
that the Pit Bull is not a CKC recognized breed, so our Kennel Club didn't
fight the ban too much because our charter doesn't actually cover non-CKC
recognized breeds.  That was a mistake, I think.  We did have a
representative on a board that was convened to adjudicate decisions on
whether a dog was a Pit Bull, or whether Pit Bulls already owned by
residents were considered "safe enough" to remain.  A dog was "safe enough"
if it passed a Canine Good Citizen test.  There were a few places making
some bucks by holding CGC tests in the weeks before the adjudication
deadline.

Recently, we've had a court case here in town where a senior citizen, fed up
with cats running loose and fouling his garden, got a live trap and trapped
four cats.  He took them to the parking lot of the Humane Society and
released them.  Didn't turn them over (costs $$$), and the cats are now
missing and have never been found.  He got charged with cruelty to animals
or some such thing.  Case was settled out of court - apparently the bylaws
are so full of holes that it wasn't clear whether trapping was illegal, if
catching the cats was theft, or if the cat owners were violating an
ordinance against letting animals run free.  One of the cat owners was
lamenting the fact that his 14 year old cat is gone.  So now there's a
polarization of the "cats gotta be free" faction and the "keep 'em all
inside" believers.  What a nightmare!

While I don't think that we should allow people to have vicious dogs that
they can't control, I can't see banning a breed because of the problems of a
few representatives of that breed.

WW
-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Coffman <dcoffman@erols.com>
To: pyrnet-l@gamerz.net <pyrnet-l@gamerz.net>
Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [PyrNet-L] Debate


>I don't have a problem with the proposition.  Obviously, there's been
>problems in Cleveland or it wouldn't be considered.  It may be another
>method to make people more responsible dog owners -- and we all know that
>many people are NOT responsible dog owners.  If the law makes a difference
>in one person's life (not being attacked by a vicious dog), then it will
>have been worthwhile.
>My opinion is the same about Adrianne's post of the fictional story.  If it
>makes a difference in one animal's life, then it's worthwhile.  Let's not
>be so critical and look for hidden meanings and hidden agendas -- life's
>too short!
>
>Donna
>
>
>----------
>> From: PgSing2u <PgSing2u@aol.com>
>> To: pyrnet-l@gamerz.net
>> Subject: Re: [PyrNet-L] Debate
>> Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 9:16 AM
>>
>> I know I'm leaving for vacation, but just wanted to share with the list
>this
>> information.
>> On the news in Cleveland, Ohio, they are talking about having a "vicious
>dog
>> law"
>> If you own a pitbull, rottweiller, chow chow, or akitas, you would be
>required
>> to have a $100,000 liability insurance policy on your dog.  Just wanted
>to
>> know people's views.  I thought this would be a great debate topic.
>>
>> Pam & Sampson
>> "Gee, Mom, how come I'm not on that list??  I bark louder than all of
>them! "
>> <EG>
>