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 discussing the success of Pit Bull bans in Winnipeg,Manitoba and Kitchener,Ontario.
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.
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.”
But of course Pit Bull attacks would go down, maybe you meant this bit:
Just to beat your opponents to the punch if they only read your quote. 
I see that Winnipeg uses the phrase “predominantly conforming” rather than “substantially similar”. Same difference.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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
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