I said from the beginning that bans are not a great long term solution but you’re not going to be happy until I join the march on Toronto. Well that ain’t happening.
Duh, that would be why I stated those quotes were from YOUR cites in my post. You know, one of the posts you can’t manage to read because it has too many (big?) words.
Actually, you’re wrong about some of that. I don’t <ahem> have a dog in this fight. I’ve never owned a dog that would fall under any breed bans - I prefer amiable, easy to handle mutts.
I just have an aversion to stupidity.
You may be right about “general society” - it’s a classic Niemoller situation, and general society ain’t too bright about such things. Usually because it’s made up of people like y’all, who prefer to ignore evidence and live by wishful thinking.
So, if a ban is put in place, CarnalK, then where is the “political will” going to come from to make any changes to licensing laws, or to enforce existing laws? You know, those things that might actually do something to solve the problem.
Not true. I’d be perfectly happy if you’d just quit arguing for something that you know (and have occasionally admitted) is wrong.
So essentially, the pro-banning position comes down to this:
We know it won’t actually work, but we’re going to do it anyway. We can’t answer even the most basic questions about how a ban will be implemented in the real world, but we’re not about to let that stop us!
Screw anyone that has dogs we don’t like; we’ll ban them because we can, knowing that it’s pointless.
We refuse to put that same time, energy, and money into trying anything that might actually work, because this is easier. The fact that it’s useless is beside the point - at least we look busy and can congratulate ourselves on “taking action”.
Does that about sum it up?
Prosecuting people in court is extremely expensive here in Ontario. Most fines do not cover the costs of prosecution in the courts. Even for simple by-law prosecutions, the costs are in the thousands.
The government sets fine levels that are proportional to the infraction, not the cost of prosecution. Quite simply, fines that are not proportional the infraction would not be supported by Joe Public.
Beyond this is the policy of using set fines to encourage enforcement, so that folks get their wrists slapped and modify their behavior without being hauled through the expensive courts.
If a fine is too high in proportion to the infraction, then the accused will insist on defending the matter in court rather than simply pay the fine. This takes us back to the problem of court being very costly for the government.
Any punishment must be enforceable. Fining the socks off a poor person will not be done by the courts, for you can not get blood from a stone. Prior to sentencing, submissions are made by counsel for the convicted to help ensure that the court does not lay down too hard a fine.
It is not that controlling owners is way beyond us, but rather that it is a lot simpler and a lot less expensive to ban dangerous dogs than to set up a regulation and enforcement regime that meets the demands for public safety. Please note that Ontario is not punishing dogs or killing dogs by banning certain types of dogs, for there will be a grandfather clause. Spaying or neutering a pet is hardly punishment.
That is precisely what has happened. A lot of people voiced their concerns about dangerous dogs, and demanded a ban.
As I pointed out above, hefty fines leads to fewer voluntary payments and more court hearings, which are very expensive for the government.
So that sums up my position does it? Well go fuck yourself. In the real world your extreme view on the outrage of a ban is lacking any power so I guess I shouldn’t waste anymore time trying to explain my actual postion.
Though in fairness i should kinda contradict myself some American states have passed legislation disallowing breed specific bans by municipalities. I was thinking only of my local reality and the topic of the OP.
Redtail, here are my responses to your queries in post 166:
Yes, it is a quick and easy fix. Not a perfect fix, but hopefully something that will slow down the rate of serious attacks.
Any that are disproportionately dangerous, with particular attention to those that are popular with skids.
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) .
If there is dispute as to the type of dog, the matter will go before a judge to decide on the basis of expert evidence.
If there is dispute as to the type of dog, the matter will go before a judge to decide on the basis of expert evidence.
That might be worth persuing.
Nope. Never said it was a valid methodology. I’ll leave that to whomever drafts the law. I’m quite satisfied with the duck approach.
Certainly. Roll with the target.
You know how animal control by-laws are drafted in Ontario? All animals of certain types (e.g. all birds, etc.) are banned outright, and then specific exceptions are made to permit certain animals under certain conditions. It is not that you are not permitted to keep certain animals, but rather that you are only allowed to keep certain animals. If banning dangerous dogs is too problematic due to the difficulty in identifying certain types of dogs, then it is a simple matter to legislate around this the way animal control by-laws in Ontario have been doing for years.
Redtail, here are my responses to your queries in post 210:
I am not aware of an import ban having been proposed.
Ban whatever dangerous dogs are in fashion with the skids at the time.
A couple of feet is a good thing. Not a perfect thing, but a good thing.
The draconian American approach to law enforcement via high incarceration rates is not wanted in Canada. Better to not let dangerous dogs breed than put people in jail for such small matters.
Well, yes, that’s exactly how your position has come across. Sorry if you don’t like the way it sounds; I didn’t care much for it myself. I could go back through your posts and quote the various things you’ve said indicating this attitude, but you got all huffy last time I did that.
My “extreme” view is based on fact, which is more than you can say. It is supported by both the CDC and the AVMA, as well as experience, as cited.
That it lacks power says more about the failings of our culture than anything else.
OK, redtail, the bone is back in your court. What is Ontario to do? Give us a plan that better protects us from dangerous dogs without costing us anything more, does not require a burdensome regulatory scheme, does not require significantly more enforcement than the present, keeps offenders out of the courts, and meets the existing policy of penalties that are proportional.
Muffin, thanks for the response.
OK, so essentially you’re ignoring all the evidence, in the hopes that maybe, possibly this might help a little.
That’s not answering the question, that’s avoiding the question. According to experts (the CDC and the AVMA), as previously cited, no specific breeds are disproportionately dangerous.
OK, what is “substantially similar”? I’m not just trying to be difficult here. It seems like you’re talking around the questions instead of answering them.
Expert evidence, as previously cited, has said that the only way to definitively determine heritage is through extremely expensive DNA testing. Anything less is not “expert evidence”, it’s guesswork.
Expert evidence, as previously cited, has said that the only way to definitively determine heritage is through extremely expensive DNA testing. Anything less is not “expert evidence”, it’s guesswork.
So you’re not necessarily talking about banning specific breeds, you’re saying that you wouldn’t be opposed to banning any number of unspecified dogs, based on nothing but physical characteristics (i.e., height, weight, color, etc.), correct?
OK, so you’re NOT saying it’s a valid methodology, but you’re perfectly willing to support it anyway, despite beaucoup evidence that it is not. If someone is drafting a law based on invalid premises, it’s pretty much going to come out with an invalid result, don’t you think?
I see. Well, that pretty much invalidates any accusations that I’m arguing slippery slope. Thanks.
Ah, thank you. No, I wasn’t aware that’s how your system is set up. The banning makes a modicum more sense under that arrangement, although only if dogs are handled in the same manner as other animals (i.e., all dogs are banned, with only specific exceptions made to permit certain dogs under certain conditions). If you’re actually doing things that way, then I can follow the logic, it would certainly have much the same effect as what I’ve proposed, i.e., strict licensing, but somehow I suspect that method wouldn’t fly with the general public, don’t you? After all, it’s fine to ban someone else’s dog, but it’s a whole different thing when it’s your dog. However, since as far as I’ve seen, the dog ban isn’t being set up along those lines, then the laws for other animals aren’t really relevant.
Ah, my error. I think I got confused talking to several different people at once, sorry.
In other words, just keep continually adding breeds to the ban, right? (By the way, I’m unfamiliar with “skids”, can you explain? Thanks.)
Well, the law-abiding citizens whose toes you’re crushing to move the line that couple of feet probably have a different opinion.
So dogs attacking and killing other animals is a “such small matter”? Dogs attacking people is a “such small matter”? If these things are “such small matters”, then why is a ban needed? I thought these were such great matters that there’s been a huge outcry for change?
OK, I’m game. But first I’ll need a little information, so I have something to work with. What are the current laws, how are they enforced, what are the costs, and what are the penalties? What is the proposed legislation, how will it be enforced, what will it cost, and what will the penalties be? How are offenders handled under current and proposed laws, if not through the courts?
The idea of some dogs as being naturally dangerous to humans has been tested in at least one court:
A comment from a British (well, Irish) member of Parliament on the British Dangerous Dog Act:
And it’s not only MPs who think that breed specific legislation is a bad idea:
An interesting comment which might be worth considering in the light of some of the hysteria that the mere mention of the world “pit bull” seems to evoke in some people:
There’s a whole other discussion to be had here about the misapprehensions people appear to hold about the ease with which you can breed very human aggressive dogs, and a considerable lack of understanding about the nature of dogs, but this seems to have developed into a very long thread already.
Pit bulls are no more dangerous than chihuahuas? Sorry, but despite what the fine dog loving folks in Alabama believe, I remain unconvinced that I will suffer no more harm when attacked by a chihuahuas than when attacked by a pit bull.
Are suggesting that the status quo is the answer to Muffins challenge to you?
Get serious.
He’s challenging you to improve on the Ontario proposal, not the current situation.
You really can’t answer his question can you ?
Criminal laws have to be objective. They must adequately put people on notice of what is prohibited and what is allowed. “Substantially similar” is far too slippery a test. If a police officer sees my boy dog, a terrier mix, he or she could well decide that my dog looks “substantially similar” to a pit bull, and confiscate my dog. Maybe he really thinks it does look like a pit, maybe he thinks that I look suspicious but can’t find anything else to book me on, whatever. Because of one cop’s arbitrary decision, my dog gets confiscated and locked up in an animal shelter. I have to go to court and try and convince a judge that the cop is wrong and I am right. This costs me money, time, and at the end of the day, I could still lose my dog because some cop decided that today would be a good day to harass the brown-skinned guy with the terrier. More importantly from my perspective is the fact that during the time I’m trying to straighten this out, my dog will be wasting away in a shelter surrounded by strangers, scared out of his mind. And do I really trust that Animal Control will properly segregate “dogs whose legality is to be determined” from “dogs who were picked up and are next in the queue to be put down”? Even if I “win” at the end of the day, I could still lose because my dog was placed in the care of Animal Control and accidentally euthanized. And the only reason he was in there in the first place was because some cop decided that he “looked like a duck.”
Those of you proposing breed bans with flip comments like “if it looks like a duck” or “I don’t care about doggy racism” just don’t get that we’re talking about sentient creatures with feelings for whom we care very deeply. And we recongize that something as vague as a breed ban could potentially require us to surrender our dogs even though our dogs have not done anything wrong. I would have no problem with a system that prospectively imposed restrictions on dog ownership, such as a requirement that dogs be spayed or neutered (unless the owner holds a special breeding license whose requirements are strictly enforced), requiring owners to complete a course of approved basic obedience training, and mandatory microchipping. But a regime that imposes after-the-fact restrictions on dog ownership based on something as vague as appearance simply does not give me any comfort against random, discretionary enforcement.
Hey shithead, some free advice: realize that “expert opinion” on future legislation is not proof and don’t assume your opponents are lying when they say they believe something. That way you look like a reasonable person, rather than a fuckhead zealot. Hope our culture never catches up with you.
Hmm, apparently bits of the “Amicus Brief by WAF submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court” (WAF=Washington Animal Foundation, now “American Canine Association”) are sprinkled throughout the anti-BSL world with minimal accreditation. Steel Heart Kennels has a page here that has a link to that submission(the intro anyway) in a wordpad doc. It has some stuff to make you think but I’m dubious about their claims of “valuable studies show no difference in jaw strengths between breeds”.
You mean you have been posting all along without foundation? That’s unfortunate.
As far as needing information goes, you will have to do your own homework.
I await your proposal.
The test here is “a law will be found unconstitutionally vague if it so lacks in precision as not to give sufficient guidance for legal debate” (R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606 at 643). It is quite easy to debate whether a dog is substantially similar to a particular breed or defined body type.
No one has proposed any “after-the-fact restrictions on dog ownership” other than that certain existing dogs will not be permitted to impregnate other dogs. That’s hardly something to get in a flap about.
Dade County, Florida has a procedure for determining whether or not a dog is a pit bull. As far as I know, it works for them.