Dog owners must be held accountable for their animals

Anne

Comment online since May 15th 2009
Well we are now in May and it is becoming very obvious that Ponte Claire's dog law is a tax grab pure and simple! Responsible dog owners are getting fined for running their dogs in empty parks at 6 in the morning! And apparently if you have two dogs off the leash, you will get two tickets! Not sure if that's even legal! I moved to Pointe Claire 2 years ago because I saw it as a "dog-friendly" city. Too bad the minority who don't understand and don't like dogs are taking over! I think a city such as Pointe Claire that has a large population of dog owners should be obligated to provide more dog runs. And not gravel pits like the one near Terra Cotta. Dogs need time off the leash...it is called exercise! The town should focus on dangerous drivers and picking up all the broken glass in the parks that are dangers to dogs and children!

James

Comment online since May 10th 2009
There are some pathetic arguments increasingly expressed in almost all aspects of the media by those who obviously have a morbid sense of humor, lack of personal jurisdiction, and an inflated self esteem. Here are some of them:

* My dog has every right to be treated like a human. (No, because it is not a human. Cats are cats, birds are birds, crocodiles are crocodiles and dogs are dogs. Very simple, if you still don't see the difference, ask a zoologist or better your psychiatrist.)

* I am a tax payer so others have to bear with my dog even if there is a possibility that it can jump on them, bite them, spread germs on them, leave excretion around and on them. (I am also a tax payer but neither I nor my children tend to jump on you, bite you, spread germs on you, leave our excretion around and on you. So why does your dog qualify to do these on me or my children? Excuse me, are you asking to be treated in a civilized manner? Well, then you should first remember a basic requirement of being civilized: "freedom is limited by temperance and prudence in such a way that no one can consider himself free to the extent that he infringes the freedom of others".)

* My dog never bites and is clean. ("42 Canadians are bitten every hour by a dog" - Canada Safety Council. "Between 1990-2007 there were 28 fatal dog attacks reported in Canada. Between 2005-2007 WSIB reported dog bite claims increased by 22%. The United States reported 40 fatal attacks for 2007. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs annually, resulting in an estimated 800,000 injuries that require medical attention." Every dog can bite and cause damage. Pit bulls are not the only ones.)

* My dog is very social, it's their fault who don't want to socialize (!) with my dog. (It's not a fault, it's a preference. Not everybody likes socializing by being licked, smelled, chased, barked, glazed or rubbed.)

* Me and other people use public areas with my tax money, so they should pay for my off-leash area with their tax money, even if they have no chance to use them because they don't have dogs or because they go out with their children. (Although the demand is clearly not justified, I would be glad to even donate some money if all dog owners would be respectful enough to limit their off-leash experience to the designated areas, and keep them clean to minimize costs. So far the evidence proves the opposite).

* Dogs are our best friends and they should be off- leash at all times. (There are no dogs in my quite long list of best friends and the law is plain and simple: A dog must be on a leash no greater than 1.8 metres (6 feet) in length when on a public thoroughfare, trail, or park. Dogs must be under a person’s control at all times (on and off leash) and kept at a distance of 1 metre from other people, animals or birds. Extendable leads are not permitted and dogs are not allowed in any wading pool area, playground, or occupied sports field. In an off-leash area the dog must be within sight and earshot and respond to voice command.)

* Any person who kills a dog is a murderer, or worse since dogs are more innocent than most people. (Really?)

* Instead of working on regulations to increase public safety and enforcements on dogs and dog owners, they should concentrate on other matters. Only after solving every problem in the world, it's fair to check whether I pick up after my dog or let it off-leash. (What a prioritization talent! And since you are so smart, could you please prioritize all problems in the world for us, before we start. Let us know when you are done, we’ll take care of the rest.)

* I don't like children, I like dogs. (Does not qualify for any comments.)

Finally a few last words for dog owners, especially those who refuse to use leash and pick up after their dogs:

Dog bites almost always surprise the owner. They rarely surprise neighbours.

Communities are safer when leash laws are enforced. Jail terms after an attack do not undo the harm to a victim. Neither does compensation.

albert veldpaus

Comment online since April 18th 2009
Dear sir, madame, newspaper readers,
As a ex-mailman, I always get a chuckle out of pit bull fans who say their dogs are misunderstood or are wrongly targeted after yet another pit bull attack story. Occasionally there is a photo of the pit bull owner proudly holding their pretend-child pit bull with, yes, both hands, suggesting that subconsciously that the dog owner understands that it doesn't look too good if they state that their precious dog would never hurt anyone seconds before an ferocious attack occurs with cameras rolling.
Pit bulls were specifically bred to take down, to find vulnerabilities in, to destroy powerful bulls. That's their job, their function, their DNA. Period. They are the doggie equilivant of bulldozers or caterpillars, which are used to move serious amounts of dirt, rubble or obstructions on construction or development sites. How many of your neighbours have a bulldozer parked in their front or back yard? Probably zero. So why do so many macho boy-men have a fondness for pit bull dogs secured with heavy chains and collars, often confined to a few square meters of territory with minimal socialization as if they were locked-down prisoners ?
Pit bulls are often given the name Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Killer and the like. When a child is born into a family that already has a Hitler, Tito, or Stalin, what does the pit bull think of the new addition to the family? Given the pit bull's intelligence, training, vocabulary and instinct, what name does the pit bull give to the newest and weakest person to the family unit? How about Meatloaf or Hamburger Helper? What happens when a pit bull wants to play pit bull games and the child wants to play pretend-brother games? The sorry results often show up on the news.
No-one in my neighbourhood or your's would tolerated anyone leaving a bear trap on a public sidewalk . They would not be too happy if crocodile or a bull was allowed to roam freely in front of our houses. The danger is obvious and would be responded to immediately by the authorities. Or by the local baseball team looking for some batting practice. No-one has the right to bring this kind of risky nonsense to your front yard. And they don't have the right to dump this danger onto public parks, school playgrounds or the like. Accordingly, pit bulls as problem dogs by definition need to be absolutely controlled and pit bull owners need to be closely and absolutely monitored.
When I goggled "pit bull attack in BC", 123,000 results popped up on my computer. Included in the titles were "B.C. boy expected to survive pit bull attack", "B.C. boy needed 100 stitches after pit bull attack", "Ban pit bulls in British Columbia", and "PIT BULL CONTROVERSY". At the bottom of the Goggle Search page was the following: "Searches related to: pit bull attack in BC: vicious pit bull, pit bull terrier, pit bull kills, pit bull jaw, pit bull bite, pit bull dogs, combat pit bull, pit bull attack statistics." Draw your own conclusion from that list.
I suggest that municipalities require all dogs to be licensed and have insurance against risk to others. If the dog owner - stop me if you've heard this before - says "But my dog would never bite anyone", then ask what insurance the dog owner has. Dogs that "never" bite anyone should be easy to insure. Goldfish and grannies without teeth are low insurance risks for biting. Dogs that "never" bite should be insurable for only pennies. Of course if the insurance companies charge, say, an arm and a leg for said policy, then perhaps the honest and objective answer is, yes, lady/sir, your damn dog can and will bite someone and the damage likely will be substantial.
I also suggest that apartment owners or condo developments pass bylaws or rules mandating that all dogs be muzzled and leashed when on common property. Start with large pony-sized dogs two metric-feet tall immediately and drop that down by six inches per year until all mutts, poodles and furballs are muzzled, leashed and controlled. Failure to comply shall cause an insurance policy to be taken out against the dog owner by the corporation and expensed back to the dog owner. When an accident or a crime involving a dangerous dog happens, lawyers looking for who's responsible for the damage are likely to target those who have the deepest pockets and did not do their "due diligence" and "competent supervision". When it comes to lawyers we all want not a "pussycat lawyer" acting on our behalf but a "pit bull lawyer". Obviously there's a reason for that kind of thinking.
Sincerely,
Albert Veldpaus,
147 Wheatfield Cr.,
Kitchener, On N2P 1P7
aveldpaus@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.westmountexaminer.com/article-315849-Dog-owners-must-be-held-accountable-for-their-animals.html
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090412/bc_pitbull_demo_090412/20090412/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
http://www.canada.com/Life/expected+survive+bull+attack/1486461/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/likely+survive+dangerous+bull+attack/1490207/story.html

Mary Nagy

Comment online since March 21st 2009
A 'privelege'? Not so! I have a right to own property. My dogs are my property. Along with that right comes a responsibility. I will defend to my dying breath my right to own my property and that includes my dogs!

Jennifer Evans

Comment online since March 20th 2009
excellent article! The responsibility is on the owner to keep their dog and the public safe! Any dog can be taught to be vicious and singling out one breed actually increases bites b/c instead of focusing on all dangerous dogs, the warden is stuck worrying about one breed only, most of which are no threat to anyone. Thank you for writing an honest article and pointing out that everything goes back to the owner - it does!

Fran Coughlin

Comment online since March 20th 2009
As a owner of pit bull type dogs for about 20 years I couldn't agree more with this article. The answer is self accountability and if someone knows that their dog is either not good with people or other pets THEY need to do what is right for the dog and themselves. If anyone LOVES their animal and the animal happens o have "issues" they are loving it BY muzzling it and keeping it and everyone else safe. IF a dog hurts another dog or person there should be a VERY HIGH fine for the first offence which includes a muzzle ORDER. TWICE as high for a second with a little jail time. While none of my dogs have ever been aggressive, I have met people with aggressive dogs in the park and for the life of me can't figure out WHY they are not protecting their dogs and the public by not muzzling them.

Owning a dog is taking on a responsibly and must be treated as such. REPORT people whose dogs are aggressive yet not muzzled, if we don't OUR dog and rights will eventually pay the price for it. I know, I live in On-Scario. Don't let a FEW ignorant owners make everyone pay a price,