# Ban on pit bulls **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988 "2004-10-01T03:46:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/241 "2004-10-26T17:12:46Z")
Just to get the goat of all those who “can’t believe this is still going” (this is the closest to a Canadian Politics thread that’s gone \>1 page, It’s my patriotic duty to bump! :)) : [Toronto Star article](http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1098266527181&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795) discussing the success of Pit Bull bans in Winnipeg,Manitoba and Kitchener,Ontario. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/242 "2004-10-26T17:19:32Z")
Crap. I should mention that article giving the case for banning is from the horse’s mouth so to speak. It’s written be the Attorney-General of Ontario, the government member announcing/proposing the legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/243 "2004-10-26T17:23:06Z")
Of interst in the Attorney General’s article is the following: “Winnipeg was experiencing more than 30 serious, reported pit bull attacks a year. Today? Zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks annually, and in a few short years since the ban was introduced, they now have about one a year.” ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/244 "2004-10-26T17:42:36Z")
But of course Pit Bull attacks would go down, maybe you meant this bit: > [@](#): > > _from article:_ > Even more interestingly, attacks in Winnipeg by all breeds of dogs — once numbering 30 to 40 per year — have decreased overall. A decade after their pit bull ban was instituted, dog attacks number about one per year, refuting the claim that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by the banned pit bulls. Just to beat your opponents to the punch if they only read your quote. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/245 "2004-10-26T18:04:28Z")
I see that Winnipeg uses the phrase “predominantly conforming” rather than “substantially similar”. Same difference. > [@http://www.winnipeg.ca/clerks/pdfs/bylaws/2443.79.pdf](#): > > “Any dog which has the appearance and physical characteristics predominantly conforming to the standards for any of the above breeds . . . .” Y’all might want to run a test case to see if this clause holds up. But hold on, it already has been tested, and it did hold up. And it even supported the “looks like a duck” approach to legislation drafting: the “look alike provision”. > [@Manitoba Association of Dog Owners Inc. v. The City of Winnipeg and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba](#): > > . . . . > > The applicants apply to have by-law 5421/90 of the respondent, The City of Winnipeg (the City) quashed on the grounds that the by-law is: > (a) Vague and uncertain, > (b) Unfair, arbitrary and unreasonable, and > © Discriminatory. > > The by-law has been described, and will be described, as the “pit bull by-law”. The pit bull by-law amends City by-law 2443/79, being the pound by-law of The City of Winnipeg. > > . . . . > > I will now deal in seriatim with the grounds delineated by counsel for the applicant. > > **Vague and Uncertain** > > The focus of the pit bull by-law is clear and precise. . . . As a guide to identification and enforcement of the pit bull by-law the history, description and pictures of the pit bulls are indicated in the schedule to the pit bull by-law. More particularly, section (g) (v) of the pit bull by-law which Mr. Prober describes as the “look alike provision” permits identification by resemblance. . . . > > The scope and effect of the pit bull by-law are clear and understandable by a reasonable person. . . . > > Accordingly, the first ground fails. > **Unfair, Arbitrary and Unreasonable** > > . . . . > > According to that mandate, unreasonableness, absent fraud, bias or bad faith is not a ground for setting aside the pit bull by-law. > > Municipal by-laws must be considered on the confident assumption that they represent the will and consensus of the voters’ elected representatives. > > . . . . > > I reject the applicant’s argument that the pit bull by-law is unfair, arbitrary and unreasonable. > > **The By-Law is Discriminatory** > > The issue of discrimination is the third ground of attack. I refer to Rogers, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Toronto: Carswell, 1991) at page 1023, under the rubric, “discrimination”. He says, if there is legislative authority: > > “The fact that a by-law is passed to benefit a particular group, even at the expense or to the prejudice of another group, is not sufficient to invalidate it on this ground so long as a council acts in what it regards as the best interest of the public.” > > . . . . > > For the above reasons I reject the application of the applicants with costs. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/246 "2004-10-26T18:58:24Z")
Having participated in breed ban threads in the past, I want to commend the current participants for their informative posts in support of banning the pit bull. To hear of the incredible reductions in dog attacks where the breed has been banned is proof enough for me as to the merits of banning pit bulls. Those opposed to pit bull banning can argue all the want. The proof is in the pudding. It should be further emphasized that no one is arguing for putting down dogs other than individuals with a negative record. ---
**Author:** ![blackhobyah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blackhobyah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blackhobyah)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/247 "2004-10-26T20:24:18Z")
> [@grienspace](#): > > Those opposed to pit bull banning can argue all the want. The proof is in the pudding. It should be further emphasized that no one is arguing for putting down dogs other than individuals with a negative record. You’re quite wrong, this is exactly what breed bans suppose. In Queensland, where bans on pits, amongst other dogs, are in place, dogs have been seized from their owners homes and destroyed for no other crime than “looking like they might be a pit bull”. No dog which looks like it might be pit (note, not is a pit, just looks like it might be) is ever rehomed from a shelter in QLD. Strays which have done nothing other than be foolish enough to get out of their homes are automatically destroyed. Under this legislation, a large number of dogs which have done nothing at all, not even get out of their owner’s yard, have already been killed In QLD, and in many other shelters in Australia, dogs don’t have to be aggressive to die, they just have to fulfil the requirements of looking like a pit. ---
**Author:** ![MelCthefirst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eada6e/32.png) [@MelCthefirst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MelCthefirst)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/248 "2004-10-26T20:35:02Z")
What would be interesting would be a study looking at people’s motivation for wanting to own Pit bulls and other dog fighting dogs - we are only assuming it is, for many (not all) to look staunch and menacing etc. It may well be that it is to have them participate in ring controlled dog fighting - which is what I suspect may be happening for a significant number of owners. If this is the case, then banning breeds would have some impact on dog attacks (possibly both to people and other dogs). As someone pointed out earlier - it would take a lot of breeding to make some breeds into fighters, thus not easily transferable to other breeds. ---
**Author:** ![MelCthefirst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eada6e/32.png) [@MelCthefirst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MelCthefirst)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/249 "2004-10-26T22:45:59Z")
> [@blackhobyah](#): > > You’re quite wrong, this is exactly what breed bans suppose. In Queensland, where bans on pits, amongst other dogs, are in place, dogs have been seized from their owners homes and destroyed for no other crime than “looking like they might be a pit bull” (snipped) > Under this legislation, a large number of dogs which have done nothing at all, not even get out of their owner’s yard, have already been killed. Have you got some examples to back this up? I not questioning you, I’m just finding it hard to understand that ‘dog control’ could come onto a property, take a licensed dog, that has no complaints about it and destroy it. I know Queensland is a little more draconian with it’s laws but this sounds horrible. ---
**Author:** ![blackhobyah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blackhobyah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blackhobyah)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/250 "2004-10-26T23:12:03Z")
> [@MelCthefirst](#): > > Have you got some examples to back this up? I not questioning you, I’m just finding it hard to understand that ‘dog control’ could come onto a property, take a licensed dog, that has no complaints about it and destroy it. I know Queensland is a little more draconian with it’s laws but this sounds horrible. Here’s a dog who survived, but his owners had the resources and the determination to save him, and they were lucky enough that he was papered. [QUOTE] Yesterdays reprieve came as his owners were about to test the dog laws in Southport Magistrates Court. Kylie and Jon are adamant Tango is an American Staffordshire Terrier, but the Council declared the dog to be a pitbull and sentenced him to death. Miss Kylie said Tango has spent , 133 days “in custody” and the exercise had cost them about 10,000. "We would have taken it to the Supreme Court, but it would have cost another $25,000 .and Tango would have to spend another 6 months in the pound. "We have been able to get hold of the pedigree paperwork from Tango’s mother’s side, which shows he is an American Staffie and we are trying to get the fathers side. We have 21 days to do that , and if we can’t, then we will have to take Tango interstate. Gold Coast Bulletin 31st August 2004[/QUOT] Gladstone Observer > [@](#): > > Pitfalls for dog owners > by Allan McNeil > > Natasha Collins is issuing a warning to other Gladstone residents after her dog was put down because it was found to be a pitbull terrier. > > When she originally bought the dog form her neighbour, Ms Collins was told it was a staffy, but her pet was later taken by council officers and destroyed, leaving the Gladstone resident distraught. > > Ms Collins said her neighbour had registered the dog who gave birth to a litter of seven pups as a staffy instead of the illegal pitbull breed. > > Although distressed that her dog “Fonk” had been destroyed, Ms Collins said it was important people were aware of the regulations and abided by council orders. “People need to realise that there are still these pups (pitbulls) out there and they could be fined if they have one.” she said. > > GLadstone City Council manager of environmental health Ron Doherty confirmed that Ms Collins neighbour did own a pitbull and was selling the pups to unsuspecting locals. > > Mr Doherty said they had been trying to talk to the owner of the dog for a number of days without any success. > > Mr Doherty said the case was very serious as owning a pitbull in Gladstone was illegal and carried a very heavy penalty. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/251 "2004-10-27T01:18:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Yesterdays reprieve came as his owners were about to test the dog laws in Southport Magistrates Court. Kylie and Jon are adamant Tango is an American Staffordshire Terrier, but the Council declared the dog to be a pitbull and sentenced him to death. That’s a bit of a no brainer, given that American Staffordshire Terriers are commonly included as a type of pit bull. Check out the definitions in the Kitchener, Ontario, and Winnipeg, Manitoba by-laws. If the irresponsible owner wanted to play games with a dogs life by trying to test the whether or not a type of pit bull was a type of pit bull, then that is truly unfortunate. ---
**Author:** ![blackhobyah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blackhobyah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blackhobyah)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/252 "2004-10-27T01:33:35Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > That’s a bit of a no brainer, given that American Staffordshire Terriers are commonly included as a type of pit bull. Check out the definitions in the Kitchener, Ontario, and Winnipeg, Manitoba by-laws. If the irresponsible owner wanted to play games with a dogs life by trying to test the whether or not a type of pit bull was a type of pit bull, then that is truly unfortunate. Except that American Staffordshire Terriers are not restricted dogs under the QLD legislation. The point being that whether or not AmStaffs are a type of pit bull, the QLD legislation does not classify them as a banned breed. If the dog had been a cross-breed which happened to look like a “pit bull type”, but had no papers, it would have died for no offence other than the way it looked, as thousands of dogs in QLD already have. For those of you in this discussion who seem to care little or nothing about dogs, that 's probably just bad luck, and one dog more or less in the world matters nothing to you. For those who love and care for their dogs, the loss of their loved pet because of bad and stupid laws is a tragedy. ---
**Author:** ![MelCthefirst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eada6e/32.png) [@MelCthefirst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MelCthefirst)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/253 "2004-10-27T01:44:56Z")
> [@blackhobyah](#): > > Except that American Staffordshire Terriers are not restricted dogs under the QLD legislation. The point being that whether or not AmStaffs are a type of pit bull, the QLD legislation does not classify them as a banned breed. > > If the dog had been a cross-breed which happened to look like a “pit bull type”, but had no papers, it would have died for no offence other than the way it looked, as thousands of dogs in QLD already have. > > For those of you in this discussion who seem to care little or nothing about dogs, that 's probably just bad luck, and one dog more or less in the world matters nothing to you. For those who love and care for their dogs, the loss of their loved pet because of bad and stupid laws is a tragedy. How long has the ban been in place and have dog attacks decreased? (BTW I don’t think there are many - if any - in this discussion who care little or nothing about dogs). ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/254 "2004-10-27T02:49:24Z")
> [@blackhobyah](#): > > For those of you in this discussion who seem to care little or nothing about dogs, that 's probably just bad luck, and one dog more or less in the world matters nothing to you. For those who love and care for their dogs, the loss of their loved pet because of bad and stupid laws is a tragedy. First, do not assume that those in support of a ban do not care for dogs. You could not be more wrong in this assumption. Second, that dog’s owners could have chosen a non-contentious dog of any number of breeds, but instead deliberately chose one that would test the law, so don’t go crying for sympathy. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/255 "2004-10-27T18:09:14Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (i.e. if it is “substantially similar” to a defined breed or breeds or set of characteristics). The first draft of the Bill was introduced to the House yesterday. The phrase used is “. . . have an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar . . . .” Wonder if someone is reading this thread? 😃 Here is a link to the Bill: [http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38\_Parliament/Session1/b132\_e.htm](http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/b132_e.htm) Here is a link to the preliminary discusion in the House (at about 1350 and following, and again a little after 1440 and following): [http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/38-1/l078a.htm](http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/38-1/l078a.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988.md?page=12)