City looks to boost fines for pit bull bites after slew of attacks

[speedog]

City looks to boost fines for pit bull bites after slew of attacks - thread name is article name from the Calgary Herald, a bit sensationalistic IMHO but it is what it is, they need to sell newspapers.

Are some breeds more prone to attacking - possibly and probably but more often than not the real problems can be traced back to either poor breeding and/or poor training. Until as such time that dog owners are forced into some sort of mandatory training program for themselves and their dog(s), attacks will continue. That said, I am all too well aware that there will never be such a thing as mandatory training and I wouldn't want to see such draconian measures but breed specific bans/fines are not even at best band-aid solutions.

BTW, I wonder if people will happen to notice who said they opposed a breed-specific ban and said breed-specific bylaws have been shown not to work...



City staff say they will push city council to enhance punishments for pet owners whose dogs are involved in biting incidents and raise the cost of licensing for breeds considered dangerous after a sudden spike in dog attacks in the past five days.

The call for greater public safety measures comes after a new batch of incidents. Following two bite attacks by pit pulls over the weekend — resulting in two dogs killed and seven charges laid against the owners — a Great Pyrenees attacked two children Monday resulting in five charges in a separate incident.

On Wednesday morning, a 14-year-old girl was bit on both legs by a pit bull-type dog before the owner and dog fled the scene. An investigation is also underway after two unleashed dogs — a German Shepherd cross and Labrador-type cross — attacked a woman at a bus stop on Wednesday.

“I’m very concerned about pit bulls and Rottweilers,” said Ryan Jestin, director of Animal and Bylaw Services. “There’s a history, there’s a reason why places like the city of Toronto have banned them outright. Is that a way we want to go in Calgary? I’m not so sure, but quite clearly we have to take additional steps to make sure owners understand the ramifications of owning a breed that may potentially harm somebody.”

There have been 23 reports of dog attacks so far in 2015. This follows approximately 400 in 2013 and 500 in 2014, although ABS operations manager Alvin Murray noted there’s usually a spike in spring and summer.

Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi said he opposed a breed-specific ban.

“It’s been shown over and over again those don’t work and have a lot of unintended consequences,” he said. “And I’m told by many people across the country that Calgary’s current responsible pet bylaw is a really good example of how to manage the issue without breed-specific bylaws. There may well be other things we need to do. We may need to look at specific penalties, but breed-specific bylaws have been shown not to work.”

Jestin said he was concerned with the “viciousness” of this week’s attacks, adding all occurred out in the street rather than off-leash dog parks. He said ABS will work with city councillors to revamp the city’s Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw over the next year.

“The evidence clearly here is about pit bulls. That specific breed has caused real damage over the last five days,” Jestin said. “If you want to have a pit bull at home you can, but I suspect it’s going to cost you much more for licensing, it’s going to cost you much more in the event there’s an attack such as we’ve seen in the last few days.”

Former city councillor John Schmal was a main proponent of a breed ban during the late 1980s. He said pit bulls “belong out in the farm somewhere.”

“They’re very dangerous. We’ve seen enough kids being bitten by pit bulls and even though families think they’re a nice animal and they’re part of the family, all of a sudden you find that they bit one of their own kids. I don’t think they belong here in our city,” Schmal said. “Our bylaw department is pretty loosey-goosey in controlling dogs in our city.”

But Barbara Walmer, head of behaviour at the Calgary Humane Society, said dog attacks are not a breed-specific problem.

“We need to educate people on training and socialization and basically responsible pet ownership,” she said. “If dogs are not social, we need to make sure we’re using preventive measures such as muzzles and leashes to prevent those interactions from happening.”

-With files from Jason Markusoff

[FraserB]

Typical attitude. Ban something so you punish everyone, not just address the shitty owners.

[lilmira]

Dogs are not new, what's different? Moar bike lanes!

[Sugarphreak]

...

[lilmira]

There is nothing wrong with breed specific rules, rules specific to breed of douchebags that is.

[firebane]

Originally posted by FraserB
Typical attitude. Ban something so you punish everyone, not just address the shitty owners.

The problem is the shitty owners don't register these dogs or have any remorse if something happens because of their dog.

Look at the story a little while back about a pit bull killing a small dog at a dog park? The owner just ran off apparently.

[B16EJ8]

Originally posted by FraserB
Typical attitude. Ban something so you punish everyone, not just address the shitty owners.
Couldn't agree more. time to ban these stupid fu***ng people. Everything is a Pitbull these days.

[ExtraSlow]

I don't understand how it's not already a criminal offence to have your dog injure someone. Couldn't this fit under existing assault laws somehow?

I like dogs, and I even like some of those "dangerous" breeds, but people need to be held accountable for the actions of their animals.

[Seth1968]

In my line of business, I enter people's houses on a daily basis. In general, the people who own these types of dogs are...well, I'm sure you can fill in the rest.

[clem24]

It's all about the pitbulls!! Yet there's 3 other breeds mentioned right in the first few paragraphs. Oops.

Yes it IS all about the owner, but at the same time, it's also the breed since some are just more susceptible to be aggressive. Metaphor time: buying a shih tzu is like buying a broom: mundane everyday item but you can still use it for bad purposes. Buying a pitbull is like trading in that broom for a gun. Plenty of very responsible gun owners but you'll get the odd who can't handle it and ignores all safety concerns.

My solution? Mandatory licensing to own a pitbull. Requirement to take a course, pay higher fees, etc..

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by clem24
buying a shih tzu is like buying a broom

Don't give them ideas:)

[bjstare]

Originally posted by clem24
It's all about the pitbulls!! Yet there's 3 other breeds mentioned right in the first few paragraphs. Oops.

Yes it IS all about the owner, but at the same time, it's also the breed since some are just more susceptible to be aggressive. Metaphor time: buying a shih tzu is like buying a broom: mundane everyday item but you can still use it for bad purposes. Buying a pitbull is like trading in that broom for a gun. Plenty of very responsible gun owners but you'll get the odd who can't handle it and ignores all safety concerns.

My solution? Mandatory licensing to own a pitbull. Requirement to take a course, pay higher fees, etc..

I agree with the first part of your post. The only part where your point isn't bang on, is the mandatory pitbull licensing. Dickhead owners will still get through this, they'll pay the fees, and then let their dogs behave badly and things will still get hurt.

If a shitty owner has a shih tzu/chihuahua/whateversmalldog, how much damage can that dog possibly do? If the same shitty owner has a pitbull or (insert other big dangerous dog breed here), that dog can kill people and other animals easily. Breed specific bans may not be the best answer, but since you can't ban shitty people from owning dogs, it's the only viable alternative IMO.

[B16EJ8]

Originally posted by Seth1968
In my line of business, I enter people's houses on a daily basis. In general, the people who own these types of dogs are...well, I'm sure you can fill in the rest.
Its stupid people like you that have no idea about the breed, and assume every dog that bites is a pitbull, and everyone who owns one is a "drug dealer".

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by B16EJ8

Its stupid people like you that have no idea about the breed, and assume every dog that bites is a pitbull, and everyone who owns one is a "drug dealer".

It's stupid people like you that lack reading comprehension.

[StreetRacerX]

So fining the shit out of the owners is the way to go when something goes south, saves banning the dog breed, that way owners who aren't doinks don't get punished.

[Dave P]

Pit Bull Only Walking Lanes downtown. 12th still has to lanes of traffic. We could put it to one lane for vehicles, one for bikes, and one for pitbulls.

[BavarianBeast]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
I don't understand how it's not already a criminal offence to have your dog injure someone. Couldn't this fit under existing assault laws somehow?

I like dogs, and I even like some of those "dangerous" breeds, but people need to be held accountable for the actions of their animals.

My dads black lab bit somebody after it was kicked, the guy who kicked my dads dog sued my dad and won. This was about 30 years ago. Not sure how the law applies but I know that you are in the wrong if your dog attacks.

[speedog]

Warning - TLDR post, I'll apologize in advance and no, I'm not providing a Coles notes version...

What is amusing about all of this is there is no recognized breed called a Pit Bull Terrier by either the CKC (Canadian Kennel Club) or AKC (American Kennel Club). What there is is multiple breeds that people generally lump together as a pit bull type of dog - the closest probably being a American Staffordshire Terrier although the UKC (United Kennel Club out of the USA) does recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier breed as a separate breed from the American Staffordshire Terrier breed.

Never the less, after having been in the pet industry 7+ years, I have met my fair share of bullies and their owners and not all of the dogs are dangerous based upon my interactions with them and certainly their owners are not douche bags in the least bit.

If anything, I have met many more dogs of other breeds and especially smaller and what many would assume to be "not dangerous" breeds that were more inclined to bite or attack anyone around them. This is about breeding plus training of both the human and the associated dog. Please note that this doesn't mean that every animal will turn out wonderful despite the best of proper breeding and the best of training - some animals just have something within their personality that makes them more dangerous. It's no different than in humans - brain chemistry, when messed up, will really affect how a person sees and reacts to the world around them and dogs are no different.

A good start though would be breeding controls - taking the sales of dogs/puppies out of the retail scene will address exactly nothing as the breeders that were supplying those dogs/puppies previously are still out there and are still making a living just through other distribution channels. The problem here though is that it would be regulation and probably government regulation and we all know how well that fixes many things - not.

So what's next - education? Fat chance anything will come about that make this a solution either. I do my best to educate people and give them advice but I am by no means an expert and I have never owned a dog and never will - just not my thing. A great example in our shop recently - young lady comes in all excited about her puppy she was picking up. I asked her if she'd had a dog before - nope. I asked her if her family had ever had a dog while she was growing up - nope. I then asked her what kind of a dog she was getting - Blue Heeler (Australian Cattle Dog), not a dog that I would ever recommend as a first dog for anyone who has never had any experience with dogs. This lady, she was getting this breed because she likes their appearance - this is wrong on so many levels but it is the main reason many people purchase a specific dog.

In the article above other breeds are mentioned as well - Great Pyrenees, German Shepherd cross, a Labrador-type cross and Rottweilers. So where does one draw the line with respect to what's a dangerous dog and what is not - hell, I know of someone who had the end of their nose almost ripped off by a 4 pound Chihuahua. Does this mean a Chihuahua is a dangerous breed? What if this Chihuahua had decided to gnaw on a newborn human - could've very well been quite a different and much more serious outcome

So I guess about the only thing that might change things is to tighten up licencing regulations and put into place stiffer penalties. It's like the $575 penalty for not remaining stopped at a crosswalk while a pedestrian is in that crosswalk - I will remain stopped because I'd rather keep that $575 in my pocket than elsewhere. Increase fines/penalties for animal regulations/offenses and we may, just may, start seeing some positive effects.

[Xtrema]

Agree on stiffer fines on dog owners when their dog attacks. I would say fines should be $2-$3K per attack, something stiff enough for owners to train them better.

Disagree on higher fees on breeds.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by StreetRacerX
So fining the shit out of the owners is the way to go when something goes south, saves banning the dog breed, that way owners who aren't doinks don't get punished.

Right. Unless the irresponsible owner leaves the scene, instead of sticking around to get a ticket. Then where are we?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by firebane


The problem is the shitty owners don't register these dogs or have any remorse if something happens because of their dog.

Look at the story a little while back about a pit bull killing a small dog at a dog park? The owner just ran off apparently.

So because a minority of the group is irresponsible and chooses not to follow the law, we're going to ban the breed outright and punish the responsible owners and the animals that will be surrendered/destroyed?

[firebane]

Originally posted by FraserB


So because a minority of the group is irresponsible and chooses not to follow the law, we're going to ban the breed outright and punish the responsible owners and the animals that will be surrendered/destroyed?

Isn't that how it generally works? If we can't get it under control there is only one way to truly fix the issue.

Life is unfair and we are always punishing groups of people for the idiotic actions of other people.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by firebane


Isn't that how it generally works? If we can't get it under control there is only one way to truly fix the issue.

Life is unfair and we are always punishing groups of people for the idiotic actions of other people.

We can't seem to get drunk driving or car accidents under control. Why not ban driving?

The problem with bans is that they are championed by people who the ban will not affect. They are more than willing to throw a bunch of other people under the bus in order for the perception of doing something. When it rolls around and someone wants to ban huskys since they are now the breed responsible for more attacks, you think the people who owned other breeds previously banned will feel like standing up for them?

[Seth1968]

^ Except, no one is saying ban all dog ownership.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Seth1968
^ Except, no one is saying ban all dog ownership.

Of course they are not. They want o ban the breed currently responsible for most altercations.

The problem is, that once pitbulls are banned, some other breed will take it's place as being responsible.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Seth1968
^ Except, no one is saying ban all dog ownership.



Originally posted by FraserB


Of course they are not. They want o ban the breed currently responsible for most altercations.

The problem is, that once pitbulls are banned, some other breed will take it's place as being responsible.

Probably. I was just referring to your "ban driving" example.

I doubt higher fines will help much, as, "My dog would never attack someone" is likely prevelant.

[sabad66]

I like the idea of slightly higher fees upfront for risky breeds and and huge fines if incidents happen (regardless of breed). Compare it with vehicles:

You have a super fast car, you pay higher insurance rates because the risk is higher and potential $ damage is greater. If you have a less risky car then you pay lower rates. If you get in a serious incident (hit/kill someone) then the punishment is high regardless of what car you have.

IMO this logic works with dogs too. It's better than outright banning the breed.

[sabad66]

Or maybe even treat it like Life Insurance. When you sign up for LI, a nurse comes to your house and tests you to get an understanding of your lifestyle and will base your rates on that.

If you want a risky dog but you are a good owner, have a professional evaluate it. If all is well then go ahead and keep your dog. If not then take it away and punish the owner for being an idiot.

[GOnSHO]

I dont like the idea of upping the cost of registering a specific breed, as said, it punishes the good owners of such dogs (i have a rotty x and my gf has a pitty x) because of people who dont know how to socialize or train their dogs properly. I for one would be pissed off I had to pay double to register my dog because of this.

Both of our pets are big sucks and would likely lick you to death before even thinking about attacking/biting...

[speedog]

Originally posted by Seth1968
^ Except, no one is saying ban all dog ownership.

Okay, the ban on cigarette sales to anyone under 18 came about how long ago in Canada?

1908 was when federal legislation (The Tobacco Restraint Act) was passed that banned the sales of cigarettes to those under 16 years of age and in 1988, The Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act was passed which made it illegal to sell or give tobacco to those under the age of 18.

So how much has this partial ban done with respect to stopping smoking among minors - I say partial because it targets a certain segment of the population in Canada.

Kind of like breed bans - won't totally solve anything.

[ga16i]

I know it's the Sun, but...
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/05/13/rash-of-dog-attacks-have-calgary-bylaw-boss-worried

If the list of attacks is accurate:
May 9: A Shih Tzu on a leash was killed by a pit bull in Martindale. Five charges have been laid.

May 10: A Yorkie/bichon dog was killed by a pit bull in Skyview Ranch. Charges have been laid against two people.

May 11: A Great Pyrenees attacked two children in Abbeydale leading to five charges.

May 13: A girl is bitten in the legs by a pit bull-type dog. No charges yet been laid.

May 13: Two dogs attack a woman at a bus stop in Rundle. A German Shepherd cross and Labrador cross have been seized.

I think we see a pattern here with the NE. :guns:

[bjstare]

Ban all inhabitants of the NE from owning dogs and smoking cigarettes

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by ga16i
I know it's the Sun, but...
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/05/13/rash-of-dog-attacks-have-calgary-bylaw-boss-worried

If the list of attacks is accurate:
May 9: A Shih Tzu on a leash was killed by a pit bull in Martindale. Five charges have been laid.

May 10: A Yorkie/bichon dog was killed by a pit bull in Skyview Ranch. Charges have been laid against two people.

May 11: A Great Pyrenees attacked two children in Abbeydale leading to five charges.

May 13: A girl is bitten in the legs by a pit bull-type dog. No charges yet been laid.

May 13: Two dogs attack a woman at a bus stop in Rundle. A German Shepherd cross and Labrador cross have been seized.

I think we see a pattern here with the NE. :guns:

Lol. Surprising yet not....

[phreezee]

F*cking owners give breeds a bad name. My dog was attacked by another husky on a walk when the owner lost control of the leash. It happened so fast I hardly had time to react. I'm thankful that there was no permanent damage and just a small puncture wound by her eye.

[max_boost]

A lot of shitty owners out there.

[ercchry]

ban pocket dogs! they should have to stay in the house just like cats :whipped:

[mazdavirgin]

Question is how many of these attacks occurred because the dogs were off leash? We should ban off leash pets withing city limits period. Off leash parks are just epic level stupid especially when they happen to be created after the fact and have bike paths running through them. Think nose hill...

[01RedDX]

.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[SmAcKpOo]

I didn't know all those attacks were in the NE. I consider myself a responsible dog owner, she never leaves my sight and is never more than 10 feet away from me at any given time.

I go to the off leash park @ McKnight & 68 st NE and there was recently an attack on a small dog by 2 mangy looking pit-bull terrier looking dogs. Apparently the owner ran away after the attack and hasn't been seen since.

Most of these attacks are originating in the NE, do people in my area not give a shit? Sad.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by SmAcKpOo

Most of these attacks are originating in the NE, do people in my area not give a shit? Sad.

its almost like you are surprised that the NE has a large concentration of people who "dont give a shit":rofl:

[codetrap]

.

[Kloubek]

I own a "pitbull-type" dog, and in buying him I knew I'd have to invest the time it takes to train a powerful breed. And I did.

I still don't believe that bully breeds are inherently more aggressive. It's just that when they do attack, there is often a lot of damage. Poodles are known to be aggressive.... yet their bite is not as severe. Keep that in mind and add in the fact that many gangstas and losers get powerful breeds for various reasons, and nobody should be surprised bully breeds account for the larger amount of media-worthy attacks.


Originally posted by cjblair


Right. Unless the irresponsible owner leaves the scene, instead of sticking around to get a ticket. Then where are we?

We'd be in the same place now when someone leaves an accident scene. Bring them up on charges if they do.

Breed specific legislation is not the answer. Even if you ban certain breeds, idiots will get other powerful breeds not part of the legislation.

I am all for stiffer fines, whereby severe attacks are punishable for up to thousands of dollars. Then, as mentioned, make it a chargeable offense to leave the scene.

If one wishes to get a Pitbull, Doberman, or Rottweiler, I say let them. As long as they are aware that if their dog seriously injures someone they will be fined $5000. If they don't want that risk, they can get a Bichon and risk a $200 fine when it punctures someone's finger Instead.

Second attack? Double fine. Same dog? Dog is assessed and possibly put down. (I believe this is already in place)

Third attack? Triple fine. Lifetime dog ownership ban.

[dirtsniffer]

Nevermind. misread the post. It's all about the owners. I remember last summer when a pit bull was blamed for killing a shitsu even though it the pit bull was on leash and the free roaming shit was roaming free.

[Khyron]

I can overpower a terrier. I can overpower a poodle. I can't beat a tiger. I can't beat a bear. And I'm pretty certain I can't beat a pit bull. If YOU (as the owner) can't overpower your own pet, you should not be allowed to have it in public. I've lost track how many times I've seen some tiny person walking a giant dog that lunges at someone - as if she can maintain control if the dog really got angry. I HATE running or biking along the path and seeing any dog off leash as I have no idea what it's going to do.

That said I still don't like the idea of breed bans (dobbermans/german shepards are hard to handle as well) but a pure pit is closer to a hyena or a baboon in terms of strength. But then what about 3/4 pit or 1/2 pit - how can you manage it all the mixes?

I think fines, and personal injury lawsuits should be sufficient, as well as death sentences for any multiple biting dog.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Khyron
If YOU (as the owner) can't overpower your own pet, you should not be allowed to have it in public. I've lost track how many times I've seen some tiny person walking a giant dog that lunges at someone - as if she can maintain control if the dog really got angry.

I kind of agree with you, but that is an impossible thing to determine. Plus, multiple people in a family may walk any given dog at any time. Can I handle my Staffy? Yeah. Can my wife? No.


Originally posted by Khyron
That said I still don't like the idea of breed bans (dobbermans/german shepards are hard to handle as well) but a pure pit is closer to a hyena or a baboon in terms of strength. But then what about 3/4 pit or 1/2 pit - how can you manage it all the mixes?

I think fines, and personal injury lawsuits should be sufficient, as well as death sentences for any multiple biting dog.

That's the thing. You can't make it breed specific. There are too many breeds, too many mixes. Up the fines and penalties if your dog attacks, and I think you'd see a huge change. At the very least, you'd see the city coffers increase. :)

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by Khyron
I can overpower a terrier. I can overpower a poodle. I can't beat a tiger. I can't beat a bear. And I'm pretty certain I can't beat a pit bull.

That said I still don't like the idea of breed bans (dobbermans/german shepards are hard to handle as well) but a pure pit is closer to a hyena or a baboon in terms of strength. But then what about 3/4 pit or 1/2 pit - how can you manage it all the mixes?


'Pit bulls' are terriers by the way. How many of the breeds have you owned? I'm guessing none.

[speedog]

And it's just gets more silly down at city hall - from the Calgary Herald (link (http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-councillor-wants-all-dogs-muzzled-for-first-year)). A muzzle on a pug, good luck finding one that'll work...


Ward 2 Coun. Joe Magliocca says he plans to introduce a motion at next month’s council meeting that would require all dog owners to muzzle their dogs in public for their first year, regardless of breed, after which the pets would have to wear colour-coded bandanas indicating how dangerous they are.

This comes after a string of five dog attacks in five days earlier this week, many involving pit bulls, which prompted Calgary animal and bylaw services to call for higher licensing fees and greater fines for owners of certain dogs involved in biting incidents. Calgary has seen 23 reported dog bites this year, 18 of which on people.

“I don’t care what dog it is, a German shepherd, a pit bull, a Doberman pinscher, a greyhound. For the first year, the muzzle has to be on until it goes through training,” Magliocca said. “I don’t care if it’s an off-leash park or they’re walking on the sidewalk. They have to have a muzzle on.”

Under his proposal, once a dog is trained and certified, it must wear a coloured bandana in public: red for aggressive dogs, yellow for those requiring caution and green for those people can approach and play with. Magliocca said owners would have discretion over which bandana their dog wears, but if they choose an inappropriate one or none at all and their dog bites someone, they’d face heavy fines of thousands of dollars.

He said this proposal would prevent attacks by certain dogs, such as pit bulls.

“People now, instead of buying like a pellet gun, they’re buying like a machine gun. It’s the same thing,” Magliocca said. “We just can’t let anybody have one of these pit bulls or terriers. It’s like putting machine guns in everybody’s hands.”

Ward 10 Coun. Andre Chabot said he would support the motion as long as it remains non-breed specific and muzzling is only required when dogs are off-leash.

“It doesn’t matter what the breed is. If they’re not properly trained, or they’re trained to be aggressive, then they will be aggressive regardless of which breed,” Chabot said. “People may not come forward with complaints about it because it may seem minor in nature. If it’s a small animal, it’s only because they do not have the ability to invoke more damage, it’s not because they didn’t have the desire to. So what’s the difference?”

Many jurisdictions have banned the ownership and breeding of pit bulls, including Ontario, Winnipeg and Denver.

Leland Gordon, chief operating officer of the City of Winnipeg animal service agency, said there’s “a big difference” between owning a pit bull and a smaller dog.

“It’s important when people adopt or they buy pit bulls … that you need to be a more responsible pet owner,” he said. “If you don’t, you’ve got something a little more stronger than a standard dog.”

But Ward 5 Coun. Ray Jones said it’s simply “an anomaly” that pit bulls have been so prominent in the past five dog attacks in Calgary.

“It’s not the breed, it’s the owner. I know people that own pit bulls that are docile and they pay attention to what their owner says to the owner,” he said.

Sage Pullen McIntosh of the Calgary Humane Society said pit bulls from Ontario have often wound up in their care since the provincial ban took effect in 2005.

“We’ve seen some really wonderful pit bulls come through our doors,” she said. “We do not support the banning of any breed of dog and oppose labelling any specific breed as inherently aggressive, vicious or dangerous.”

Gordon said Winnipeg’s 25-year ban on pit bulls serves not only to protect people, but the dogs too.

“One of the reasons we had all these problems back in the early 1990s was because of irresponsible pet owners,” Gordon said. “We’re protecting people from the animal, but the other reason is we want to protect the dog from people. Pit bulls are the most abused dog in the world.”

Alice Nightengale, the director of Denver animal protection, said Denver’s ban was spurred by maulings and the prevalence of dog fights involving pit bulls 20 years ago.

“It’s a severity issue,” Nightengale said. “They’re more pugnacious, they have more severe bites as opposed to a Chihuahua for example.”

Magliocca said he doesn’t think it’s time yet to propose a full pit bull ban in Calgary.

“But you know what?” he said. “If I have to, I will.”

[email protected]

[lilmira]

:facepalm:

Dogs to wear muzzles in their first year? How much do they grow in their first year?

Colour coded bandana? From aggressive to something anyone can play with? Are you fucking serious. If you don't know the dogs, they are all aggressive, don't approach without asking the owners. If you know, you know already.

It's fine the way it is, it just needs more enforcing.

[freshprince1]

Originally posted by Kloubek
....I still don't believe that bully breeds are inherently more aggressive. It's just that when they do attack, there is often a lot of damage. Poodles are known to be aggressive.... yet their bite is not as severe. ...

Here is how I see it, as a non-dog person and a non-dog owner. I fully realize that most attacks are a results of some error by the owner, be it poor training or poor handling at that time. But we are dealing with different classes of breeds with different equipment. One breed seems to stand out as being able to do more harm, more easily...and is susceptible to questionable owners. So to me, that seems to warrant increased scrutiny on ownership and handling.

I have a hockey stick and a gun, both are sports equipment and both are most often used to play sports and have a great time. But because my guns can more easily kill someone, I have to have a license, training, and be held to higher standards of ownership. If left on their own...nothing happens. But put them in the hands of differnet owners...and some serious shat can go down.

Just like with guns, there will be scumbag owners that skirt the system and screw up, but I think for the most part the training and increased scrutiny could help to reduce a lot of problems.

So if you want a pitbull...great. Buy a license, take the breed specific training course on how to raise and manage a pitbull, and enjoy. Your dog may not be any more naturally aggressive than others...but it DOES have the toolset to be a lot more dangerous IF it happens. And as the owner, you need to know how to train your dog to not let that happen, but also know what to do if it does happen....and be held responsible either way.

[lilmira]

I like the idea of mandatory training for both the dogs and their owners as requirement for licensing. This will take time as anyone can call themselves dog trainers currently if I'm not mistaken.

[R-Audi]

Im sure anyone can call themselves dog trainers, but there is a long certification program that you can complete. (Then become a certified dog trainer)

[speedog]

Originally posted by lilmira
I like the idea of mandatory training for both the dogs and their owners as requirement for licensing. This will take time as anyone can call themselves dog trainers currently if I'm not mistaken.
As great an idea this is, it just won't ever happen.

First, you'd need a whole bunch of people hired within CoC Animal Services assuming they'd be overseeing this in Calgary. Then you'd have to lay down the rules/guidelines of what it would require be a recognized dog trainer in Calgary plus license them as well and regularly review their credentials. Next up, adding the training component into the animal licensing system which probably means more people to be hired for that plus some sort of check-off system would have to be developed and put into place to track any mandatory training. Additionally, which human gets trained - just the listed owner or should anyone who would happen to take the dog outside of the home on a leash or to an off leash park require training as well.

This is not that simple and that's why I'm saying it'll never happen - just too many logistics in the way. Can't put the responsibility on the backs of breeders as there's many, many back yard breeders still out there as well as the many little oopsies puppies that always show up plus how does the CoC control that responsibility for any breeders not located within the CoC's jurisdiction?

Nope, instead our council will debate silliness like Ward 2 Coun. Joe Magliocca will bring to meetings and possibly increase some fines. Increased education - just a farce as the CoC Animal Services could offer up a gadzillion free dog owner education classes and most likely just a handful out of hundreds of dog owners would taker any such course. I suppose such a course could be made into a sort of on-line course as a requirement to get a license but that would be a farce as well as it wouldn't do anything for the actual dog in question.

In the end, everything will calm down in a week or two and it won't be newsworthy until the next significant incident(s) - that's the way it's been and will continue to be.

[Nitro5]

We all this e calling for higher licensing fees, take a stroll through the NE. Tell me those idiots that have a bully as a fashion accessory walking around with them in chains with pinch collars, how many tags do you see?

The idiots that have the dogs for the wrong reason don't follow the rules as they are now. Maybe Bylaw show be proactive instead of reactive. Seize dogs that aren't licensed on the spot and they don't go back until the owner licenses them.

[speedog]

Originally posted by R-Audi
Im sure anyone can call themselves dog trainers, but there is a long certification program that you can complete. (Then become a certified dog trainer)

Under which dog trainer organization's watch then?

The CAPPDT (Canadian Association of Professional Pet Dog Trainers)? The IACP (International Association of Canine Professionals)? RDOC (Responsible Dog Owners of Canada)? APDT (Association of Pet Dog Trainers)? CCPDT (Certification Council for Pet Dog Trainers)?

I could probably add to this small list but it is apparent there is no one regulating body when it comes to dog training within Calgary, Alberta or Canada and I do not see or foresee any concentrated effort to create or designate any one organization as such.

[speedog]

Originally posted by Nitro5
We all this e calling for higher licensing fees, take a stroll through the NE. Tell me those idiots that have a bully as a fashion accessory walking around with them in chains with pinch collars, how many tags do you see?

The idiots that have the dogs for the wrong reason don't follow the rules as they are now. Maybe Bylaw show be proactive instead of reactive. Seize dogs that aren't licensed on the spot and they don't go back until the owner licenses them.

As there's currently over 90 Bylaw officers on the CoC's payroll, and I suspect they're already quite busy - I suppose more could be hired just to monitor dogs/dog owners but that would mean more bylaw trucks and all the additional expenses that come with that and that all has to balanced against the actual funds that can be generated by said new bylaw officers. Yupp, I said that because either everyone's taxes go up to support additional bylaw officers or a cost/benefit analysis is done to see if the required number of new bylaw officers can generate enough revenue to offset the expenses incurred to having them.

[lilmira]

Yeah I know, I don't see that happening neither. It's possible but it will take a lot of work and time, not worth it for the number of incidences caused by irresponsible owners.

But bandanas, how about big name tags for dog owners.

[ZenOps]

Tieing a dogs or any pets actions to its master is fine by me. If the dog bites a childs legs and cripples them for life, then the dog owner should foot the bill.

Then I would also be able to sue the owner of the neighboorhood cat, when I get a brain worm from its claws. Mmm, brains.

It always confounded me as to why people would easily forgive say, a miscarriage on proximity to cat poop - but not forgive a miscarriage because of say - fracking water.

[clem24]

LOL @ the stupid bandana and muzzle idea. If that goes into effect, both my pooches are sporting red bandanas because that looks best on them anyway. Plus that'll keep everyone away from me and warn any possible thieves so beware. Perfect. :D

I think this might be the end of Joe Magliocca's political career. Talk about idiot ideas from people who have absolutely no understanding of the issues.

Really how the fuck does this stop your stupid little dog from getting killed by running up to a pit bull wearing red?? You gonna train your dog to stay away from red dogs?!! Can dogs even see red? WTF...

[speedog]

Originally posted by clem24
LOL @ the stupid bandana and muzzle idea. If that goes into effect, both my pooches are sporting red bandanas because that looks best on them anyway. Plus that'll keep everyone away from me and warn any possible thieves so beware. Perfect. :D

I think this might be the end of Joe Magliocca's political career. Talk about idiot ideas from people who have absolutely no understanding of the issues.

Really how the fuck does this stop your stupid little dog from getting killed by running up to a pit bull wearing red?? You gonna train your dog to stay away from red dogs?!! Can dogs even see red? WTF...

Out of Okotoks but not law there - DEWS (http://www.dews.ca/).

[CompletelyNumb]

Nitro5 nailed it. You can make all sort of rules and bylaws about licenses or procedures, but that won't deter douchebag or criminal owners.

The only real way to enforce anything to do with dogs is jail time for the owner. Your dog attacks someone? You go to jail. Who cares if it's trained or licensed. Jail. This includes your stupid pug that bites everything he sees.

I bet people will learn fast.

[BrknFngrs]

As everyone has kind of identified already, logistically there isn't a great way to handle this issue:
- higher licensing won't matter because dirtbag owners likely don't license
- higher fines likely won't matter as dirtbag owners pet likely isn't licensed and if the fines were punitive enough to matter they would likely just run off instead of facing them
- setting up mandatory training programs would be ideal but a nightmare to setup as alluded to above
- going after licensing directly would take significant manpower and the costs of which would likely outweigh the benefit
- the whole bandana idea is just stupid in every sense

I really feel for the responsible owners of these dogs because it's clearly a case of idiots ruining it for everybody. Unfortunately unless a person can decide that this is an issue that doesn't need to be addressed (which seems challenging based on the frequency that serious attacks relate to specific breeds) ban seems like the only option logistically :thumbsdow

[HiTempguy1]

Fines attached to vehicle registration. Done son!

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
The problem is you are going to end up punishing responsible owners of these breeds with extra costs and restrictions if you introduce breed specific rules and licencing.

It would be a good idea if dog owners had to get themselves licensed by demonstrating basic handling skills and providing proof of a healthy home environment before they could even buy a dog in the first place. Kind of like a PAL.

You mean kind of like how I have to pay a ridiculous amount of insurance on my motorbike even though I've never been involved in a collision or been ticketed while operating it? Too bad, if you want to swim in the pool pay the toll.

[HomespunLobster]

Getting a pet should have been as comprehensive as what I had to go through with the adoption of my dog through a rescue foundation.

I had to be paper interviewed, phone interviewed, they came to my house and looked around, in person interview, file all appropriate paperpork, get a vet set up and provide contact info for the vet, have dog licensing within a week after having the dog, I had to meet the dog twice, then the dog came to my place to wander around then after all that I got my dog. Wouldn't trade him for the world, but I know too many people who just "get dogs" and then decide it's not for them or get bored. If you had to put work into the process you'd weed out many potential shit owners.

[01RedDX]

.

[finboy]

I had to google it to see what my dog would look like with a muzzle, can you say Bane? :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.fordogtrainers.co.uk/images/Hundemaulkorb-aus-Leder-Collie-de.jpg

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


You mean kind of like how I have to pay a ridiculous amount of insurance on my motorbike even though I've never been involved in a collision or been ticketed while operating it? Too bad, if you want to swim in the pool pay the toll.

Are motorcycle injuries and deaths comparable to dog bites?

[frizzlefry]

I grew up owning german shepherds. They pretty much had a "colour" by being german shepherds. IE "I am a german shepherd. Mess with me and I will fuck your shit up." In my experience in off leash parks et all is that small dogs often run up to perfectly behaved big dogs and start shit. Those little fluff bags are the boss at home and act the boss outside. Then they act the boss to a dog bigger than them. Nothing to do with the nature of the big dog. Dog attempts to dominate strange dog, bigger dog wins. Bigger dog gets fined.

The most vicious, untrained dogs i ever saw were small dogs. But their bite is nothing so no one cares. Then little dog goes out, bosses a big dog, gets beat up. Big dog is labeled vicious and quarantined.

The color idea is dumb. Any normal dog, regardless of breed or size, doesn't like some strange dog (regardless of size) trying to dominate it and will reject such attempts in the form of a physical dispute. Which little mr fluff-prince will lose. What is normally a minor dominance behavior can be fatal if the the size differential is 70+ lbs.

But there is also a flip side. Breeds that have a strong guard instinct MUST be trained as such.

My shepherds were all trained guard dogs. We worked with their aggression and trained them how to escalate properly. To an untrained eye that seems like encouraging aggression but the aggression is there. Whether you like it or not. Ignore it or simply suppress it and it may explode in your face one day. The basic stuff (sit stay heel good dog) doesn't address their guard instincts. Those instincts need to be brought out during training so the dog knows how to handle those situations. Something they would learn with a pack but people rarely teach. So your big dog sits and stays and plays and is socialized. This is good. But will it do the same when it's in defense mode or perceives a threat? At those times the dog is in a different mental state and needs to be trained in that state as well. But people often do the EXACT opposite. Barking, growling etc are all instinctual aggression escalation signals dogs use to warn people "I might bite, back off". They are giving you a heads up. And the common reaction by many owners is "shut up!" "stop it!" "get in your kennel!". Not only do some owners not work with their dog's aggression to train the dog how to use it, they systematically suppress all the warning signs via negative reinforcement. Then the only tool the dog has left, after being told to not bark or growl or etc, is biting. A normal dog using normal instincts gives about a dozen warning signs before it bites that are very clear. Biting "out of nowhere" often comes as a result of the dog being told to shut up and stop barking (warning us) a thousand times.

By working with our dog's guard instincts we never had any incidents in our daily off leash visits. Any aggression was quelled with verbal commands because our dogs had gone through that training in that state numerous times.

But that's not something you can legislate. My only solution would be to fine anyone walking their dog off leash outside a designated park. And to use an off leash park you should register your dog with calgary parks and rec and display your "number" or whatever to gain access. Thats the best solution i have. Its a shitty solution but its better than muzzles and colours

:nut:

[ZenOps]

Put another way: The city will not even allow you to raise chickens.

Its as much a health issue as a safety issue. Chickens are (if you believe in evolution) the direct descendants of Tyrannosaurus Rex afterall. They will peck at anything if they are hungry enough, humans are no exceptions, children and babies are no exception - horror stories of lost eyes, even one in a million are enough to keep chickens out of populated areas forever.

Its fairly hard to argue that chicken poop is any worse than any other animals poop. Cat poop is probably the most dangerous as it tends to contain organisms that interrupt the human reproductive cycle. As for nuisance factor, a chicken cluck is probably less loud than most dog barks, and less annoying than crows.

By my estimation, if you are going to ban chickens from the city based on immediate danger, then many breeds of dog are up for review - not just pitbulls.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/13/uknews.taxonomy

[Amysicle]

.

[firebane]

Originally posted by cjblair


If a shitty owner has a shih tzu/chihuahua/whateversmalldog, how much damage can that dog possibly do? If the same shitty owner has a pitbull or (insert other big dangerous dog breed here), that dog can kill people and other animals easily. Breed specific bans may not be the best answer, but since you can't ban shitty people from owning dogs, it's the only viable alternative IMO.

I want you to think about this for a second.

A tiny dog such as a chihuahua comes up to a big mastiff and starts giving the mastiff attitude. Owner of the mastiff takes dog out of the situation but the chihuahua keeps coming back for more and finally the mastiff has had enough and dominates the small dog and maims/injures/kills the small dog who is going to get into the most trouble?

Guaranteed the owner of the mastiff is going to have a very ugly mess on his hands.

[Nitro5]

Food for thought, in Canada there has been a single death attributed to a Pitbull breed in this study from 1990-2007

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/

[Seth1968]

Why would anyone take another life form and use it as a "pet"?

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by firebane


I want you to think about this for a second.

A tiny dog such as a chihuahua comes up to a big mastiff and starts giving the mastiff attitude. Owner of the mastiff takes dog out of the situation but the chihuahua keeps coming back for more and finally the mastiff has had enough and dominates the small dog and maims/injures/kills the small dog who is going to get into the most trouble?

Guaranteed the owner of the mastiff is going to have a very ugly mess on his hands.


And that's precisely the issue that society needs to change their view on. Severity of bite is moot, it's the aggression that's the problem.

Again why i say, the breed doesn't matter, aggression should be the issue. Regardless of breed. Justice is blind. Yadda yadda.

[cancer man]

Springer Spaniel real bad ass dogs for biting kids ..fk i hate that breed.
I'll take a pitbull first.

[Nitro5]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/any-dog-under-50-pounds-is-a-cat-ron-swanson.jpg

[bjstare]

Originally posted by firebane


I want you to think about this for a second.

A tiny dog such as a chihuahua comes up to a big mastiff and starts giving the mastiff attitude. Owner of the mastiff takes dog out of the situation but the chihuahua keeps coming back for more and finally the mastiff has had enough and dominates the small dog and maims/injures/kills the small dog who is going to get into the most trouble?

Guaranteed the owner of the mastiff is going to have a very ugly mess on his hands.

I entirely agree with your example, however that's not what I was really referring to. If someone has a little dog that they've trained poorly/can't keep in check, then the situation is incredibly unfortunate for the presumably responsible mastiff owner, and the owner of the agressor dog should be held accountable (regardless of the dog's size).

I was thinking more about dog -> person attacks when I wrote my other post, which are quite different from dog-> dog attacks.


Originally posted by CompletelyNumb

And that's precisely the issue that society needs to change their view on. Severity of bite is moot, it's the aggression that's the problem.


I dunno if you have kids; if you don't just try and imagine you do for a second - would you rather have your child bitten by a shih tzu or a pitbull? Get a grip man, the severity of the bite is not even remotely a moot point, it's actually quite relevant.

[firebane]

Well a dog to person attack is obviously quite different but a kid can give off the same behavior as a small dog especially a kid that runs around with no supervision running up to any dog it feels and wants to "play" with it.

A dog owner can only do so much to keep the dog from becoming aggressive towards the kid and the dog can only do so much to keep its cool before it snaps like a human being.

There is so much training that needs to be done when it comes to dogs vs dogs and kids/people vs dogs that it just isn't possible and if it did become possible perhaps less attacks would happen.