Legal Definition of a Bite?

Description of your first forum.

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Dale Atki » Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:37:21



Was just reading the new Ontario Pit Bull bill, and I got to thinking.
Anyone know what the technical definition of bite is? Or for that matter
attacking?

Just thinking, Erwin went to introduce himself to an old/half senile lady in
the dog park the other day. He was perfectly friendly in my opinion, but I
can imagine she might have thought otherwise (why the person who was with
her brought her to a VERY popular dog park is anyone's guess).
And as far as biting goes, personally I would imagine that the skin would
have to be broken for it to qualify, but in any animal regulation by-laws
that I've read, they never really define what constitutes a bite, or what
constitutes harassing a domestic animal (I mean would playing a little too
rough with another dog qualify as harassment?)
I know when I was reading the local animal by-laws, Erwin could under a very
broad interpretation of the rules be classed as a vicious dog (at the time
he was a 4 month old puppy).
So anyone with any experience/lknowledge in the area?

Dale.

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by smithandwes » Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:54:25



Quote:
> Was just reading the new Ontario Pit Bull bill, and I got to thinking.
> Anyone know what the technical definition of bite is? Or for that matter
> attacking?

> Just thinking, Erwin went to introduce himself to an old/half senile lady
> in the dog park the other day. He was perfectly friendly in my opinion,
> but I can imagine she might have thought otherwise (why the person who was
> with her brought her to a VERY popular dog park is anyone's guess).
> And as far as biting goes, personally I would imagine that the skin would
> have to be broken for it to qualify, but in any animal regulation by-laws
> that I've read, they never really define what constitutes a bite, or what
> constitutes harassing a domestic animal (I mean would playing a little too
> rough with another dog qualify as harassment?)
> I know when I was reading the local animal by-laws, Erwin could under a
> very broad interpretation of the rules be classed as a vicious dog (at the
> time he was a 4 month old puppy).
> So anyone with any experience/lknowledge in the area?

> Dale.

The only experience I've had with dog biting was with our late Pedie - A
long-haired Chow/Collie mix of about 90 lbs.  He was harassed by the next
door neighbor boy and hated boys after that.  A new boy moved in, and a
storm came on which terrified Pedie.  Pedie got out, saw the boy, the boy
started running and of course Pedie's instinct kicked in and he chased.  He
"bit" the boy on the leg, not even breaking the skin.  However, the parents
called the police claiming they didn't know whose dog it was (they knew).
Pedie's vacs were up to date, but they had to quarantine him for 3 days.  We
don't have animal control so he hung out at the town jail with the officers
and dispatchers.  In spite of his general dislike of men and boys, Pedie
loved the guys up there and they like him.  He had a great time, the
officers hated to see him go, and came back a few pounds heavier!

--
~ Lori
and Jack, Sasha, Rufus, Joey, Lindy and Bug
{Clean the doghouse to reply}
~ http://www.smithandwest.net/
~ PETS, Inc -   http://www.petsinc.org/
~ http://petsinc.petfinder.org/

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Emily Carroll/Flutterval » Sat, 04 Dec 2004 05:32:14



Quote:
> Was just reading the new Ontario Pit Bull bill, and I got to thinking.
> Anyone know what the technical definition of bite is? Or for that matter
> attacking?

> Just thinking, Erwin went to introduce himself to an old/half senile lady
in
> the dog park the other day. He was perfectly friendly in my opinion, but I
> can imagine she might have thought otherwise (why the person who was with
> her brought her to a VERY popular dog park is anyone's guess).
> And as far as biting goes, personally I would imagine that the skin would
> have to be broken for it to qualify, but in any animal regulation by-laws
> that I've read, they never really define what constitutes a bite, or what
> constitutes harassing a domestic animal (I mean would playing a little too
> rough with another dog qualify as harassment?)
> I know when I was reading the local animal by-laws, Erwin could under a
very
> broad interpretation of the rules be classed as a vicious dog (at the time
> he was a 4 month old puppy).
> So anyone with any experience/lknowledge in the area?

> Dale.

My definition of a bite is when a dog (or other animal) deliberately puts
part of a person in it's mouth.  IMO, it doesn't need to break skin to cause
emotional trauma.

--
Emily Carroll
http://www.fluttervale.com/kennel - Fluttervale Labradors
http://www.fluttervale.com/biography - Canine Biography

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by DoublE » Sat, 04 Dec 2004 06:23:06




Quote:
>Was just reading the new Ontario Pit Bull bill, and I got to thinking.
>Anyone know what the technical definition of bite is? Or for that matter
>attacking?

>Just thinking, Erwin went to introduce himself to an old/half senile lady in
>the dog park the other day. He was perfectly friendly in my opinion, but I
>can imagine she might have thought otherwise (why the person who was with
>her brought her to a VERY popular dog park is anyone's guess).
>And as far as biting goes, personally I would imagine that the skin would
>have to be broken for it to qualify, but in any animal regulation by-laws
>that I've read, they never really define what constitutes a bite, or what
>constitutes harassing a domestic animal (I mean would playing a little too
>rough with another dog qualify as harassment?)
>I know when I was reading the local animal by-laws, Erwin could under a very
>broad interpretation of the rules be classed as a vicious dog (at the time
>he was a 4 month old puppy).
>So anyone with any experience/lknowledge in the area?

>Dale.

I don't believe the skin has to be penetrated:

"to seize especially with teeth or jaws so as to enter, grip, or
wound."

"45 [Cav's] wins???? hahahahahahaha"
            - Travis, premature prognosticator victim

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Karen » Sat, 04 Dec 2004 14:55:27


Quote:


>>Was just reading the new Ontario Pit Bull bill, and I got to thinking.
>>Anyone know what the technical definition of bite is? Or for that matter
>>attacking?

>>Just thinking, Erwin went to introduce himself to an old/half senile lady
>>in the dog park the other day. He was perfectly friendly in my opinion,
>>but I can imagine she might have thought otherwise (why the person who was
>>with her brought her to a VERY popular dog park is anyone's guess).
>>And as far as biting goes, personally I would imagine that the skin would
>>have to be broken for it to qualify, but in any animal regulation by-laws
>>that I've read, they never really define what constitutes a bite, or what
>>constitutes harassing a domestic animal (I mean would playing a little too
>>rough with another dog qualify as harassment?)
>>I know when I was reading the local animal by-laws, Erwin could under a
>>very broad interpretation of the rules be classed as a vicious dog (at the
>>time he was a 4 month old puppy).
>>So anyone with any experience/lknowledge in the area?

>>Dale.

Sorry this is a bit long.........

We live in Ontario and had our own experience with a dog bite at the
beginning of summer. We live in a duplex with shared property. The
people in the upper apartment own two dogs and we have our yellow lab
Brandi. One of the neighbour's dogs is a lab/spaniel cross, the other is
a boxer/pit bull cross. They also regularly have his brother's dog there
which is also a boxer/pit bull cross. The lab cross is chained outside
24/7 unless it is storming or snowing. The kids (the neighbour's and
mine)played around this dog all the time. It was not uncommon for my
girls to walk up to the dog say hello and give him some much needed
attention, which usually ended up with the dog rolling over onto his
back for a good belly rub.

At the beginning of this past summer my oldest daughter who is 16 was
being dropped off by her boyfriend and his family. As my younger
daughter and myself stepped out the front door she got out of their van
and walked up to the dog to say hello. As she got up to him she noticed
a different look in his eyes and went to back away when he lunged at her
and grabbed her by the hand, piercing the skin. He released his grip and
as she started to remove her hand from his mouth he bit down even harder
and tried to shake her hand. I will never forget the look of terror in
her eyes as she turned her face to me and screamed. All this took a
matter of seconds to happen. As I got up to him he released her. Luckily
her boyfriend's mother hadn't pulled out yet and is a nurse. We spent 3
hours at the hospital getting her hand glued shut (the tears were to
jagged for stitches). If the tooth that pierced the top of her hand had
been about 2mm farther up the hand it would have meant a major hospital
stay as he came that close to hitting a major artery in her hand.

The one thing I do know about Ontario Law is that if someone comes into
the hospital for a dog bite it is automatically reported to the local
health unit who then orders the dog quarantined. Our local by-laws
require that the dog be quarantined for 14 days whether they are up to
date on their shots or not. In turn the dog is usually investigated by
the local animal control officer, especially when the dog has more then
one bite report against it. The officer can then make orders against the
dog if it is deamed that he is aggressive. These orders can include
muzzling or being penned where they can not have access to children or
other animals. They cannot order the dog destroyed, that can only be
done by a judge.

Now I do not blame the dog for his behaviour. I blame the owners. These
are people who should not own a dog let alone two of them. This dog got
little to no attention other then from the kids when he was their only
dog. When they brought home the boxer/pit cross as a small puppy, all
attention was given to the puppy and the lab cross was virtually ignored
other then feeding him once a day and changing his water every other
day. He sits chained to his dog house and watches as the puppy got lots
and lots of attention. Unfortunately this dog will probably bite again
as long as he is owned by these people. He now has two reports against
him with the health unit. He could be a wonderful loving dog with the
right training (of which he has none) and the right attention, though at
the stage he is at it would take alot of work. For now my kids stay away
from him. My oldest is terrified of him and if any of their dogs are on
the property off leash my dog stays inside.

Sorry for the long post.

Karen Green

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Step » Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:22:26


Oh, one more thing.  Most of the time attacks happen so fast that you can't
see if it was a tooth or a nail that was used.  The authorities always
assume that it was a tooth unless PROVED otherwise.


Quote:
> Sorry I have to say something here because this topic really pisses me
off.
> I live in Ontario as well and have to deal with all this ***about
banning
> pitbulls.  Where I live, Pitbulls (and breeds that an officer labels as a
> Pitbull) are banned unless you had them before the law was passed.  I work
> in a vet clinic.  I've seen perfectally good owners have to put down
> perferctally amazing dogs because of what breed they are.  They aren't
> agressive, never bit anyone...just dying because of what they are.  To me,
> this is no different than racisim.  You're euthanizing/hating it because
of
> how it was born, what breed it is.  How is this different than hating
blacks
> from example just because they were born black???  I live in a city that
> thrives on multiculturalism but I guess that it only relates to people.  I
> with the person that said BAN OWNERS!  Any dog can be good...just as any
dog
> can be bad.  Any dog can bite.  I hate it when owners say "oh, Fluffly
> wouldn't bite!" then BAM Fluffy bites.  It happened to me and three other
> girls at the clinic.  We were working on a show cat who was used to
> everything and a regular at the clinic.  We had to shave a spot on its
head.
> I held the cat close and scruffed it as I would any animal but the dr -
who
> is a very close personal friend of the client - told me to let go because
> this cat was sooo good.  Bit my metacarpal/phalange joint.  Swelled to a
> ballon, part of the tooth broke off in my finger, had to go to hospital
and
> on antibiotics as well.  Did the same thing to two other girls as well!
But
> this cat would NEVER EVER bite!!  My dog plays with a 10month old pitbull
> all the time!  I have a four month old black lab who's bigger than him!!
He
> hides behind his mom's legs all the time!  He's a big chicken dog.  We
have
> pitbulls come in all the time...yes some girls are hesitant to go in the
> room/kennel with them but I don't care.  If it's going to bite it's going
to
> bite regardless of it's breed!  The other day we had a pit in.  I was
> sitting in it's kennel with her with my hands covered in a/d forcefedding
> her.  No problems!  Next, we got out our surgery which was a little cutie
> wootie yorkie and it went psycho and tried to kill us!  We had three
people
> trying to get a hold of it so it wouldn't bite anyone so we could muzzle
it.
> Personally, I get bit more by little fluffy dogs than big ones (especially
> Pits).  But when fluffy the little puffy bichon bites, "ooohh it's so
> cute!!".  I think this law is the stupidest thing I've ever heard off.
> Owners sould be screened...whether you're getting a shih tzu, lab or pit!
> My friend is buying a house and she has one of the most well behaved dogs
> I've ever meet.  He's a cross, mother was purebred Rottie and the
neighbours
> dog came to visit but no one knows what he's crossed with.  Looks like a
> brindle lab.  Her house insurance won't cover her if the dog comes to live
> with them.  All this banning breeds is already gone to far.  When is it
> going to stop...if it does even stop!

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Step » Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:11:15


Sorry I have to say something here because this topic really pisses me off.
I live in Ontario as well and have to deal with all this ***about banning
pitbulls.  Where I live, Pitbulls (and breeds that an officer labels as a
Pitbull) are banned unless you had them before the law was passed.  I work
in a vet clinic.  I've seen perfectally good owners have to put down
perferctally amazing dogs because of what breed they are.  They aren't
agressive, never bit anyone...just dying because of what they are.  To me,
this is no different than racisim.  You're euthanizing/hating it because of
how it was born, what breed it is.  How is this different than hating blacks
from example just because they were born black???  I live in a city that
thrives on multiculturalism but I guess that it only relates to people.  I
with the person that said BAN OWNERS!  Any dog can be good...just as any dog
can be bad.  Any dog can bite.  I hate it when owners say "oh, Fluffly
wouldn't bite!" then BAM Fluffy bites.  It happened to me and three other
girls at the clinic.  We were working on a show cat who was used to
everything and a regular at the clinic.  We had to shave a spot on its head.
I held the cat close and scruffed it as I would any animal but the dr - who
is a very close personal friend of the client - told me to let go because
this cat was sooo good.  Bit my metacarpal/phalange joint.  Swelled to a
ballon, part of the tooth broke off in my finger, had to go to hospital and
on antibiotics as well.  Did the same thing to two other girls as well!  But
this cat would NEVER EVER bite!!  My dog plays with a 10month old pitbull
all the time!  I have a four month old black lab who's bigger than him!!  He
hides behind his mom's legs all the time!  He's a big chicken dog.  We have
pitbulls come in all the time...yes some girls are hesitant to go in the
room/kennel with them but I don't care.  If it's going to bite it's going to
bite regardless of it's breed!  The other day we had a pit in.  I was
sitting in it's kennel with her with my hands covered in a/d forcefedding
her.  No problems!  Next, we got out our surgery which was a little cutie
wootie yorkie and it went psycho and tried to kill us!  We had three people
trying to get a hold of it so it wouldn't bite anyone so we could muzzle it.
Personally, I get bit more by little fluffy dogs than big ones (especially
Pits).  But when fluffy the little puffy bichon bites, "ooohh it's so
cute!!".  I think this law is the stupidest thing I've ever heard off.
Owners sould be screened...whether you're getting a shih tzu, lab or pit!
My friend is buying a house and she has one of the most well behaved dogs
I've ever meet.  He's a cross, mother was purebred Rottie and the neighbours
dog came to visit but no one knows what he's crossed with.  Looks like a
brindle lab.  Her house insurance won't cover her if the dog comes to live
with them.  All this banning breeds is already gone to far.  When is it
going to stop...if it does even stop!
 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Dale Atki » Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:20:13


Quote:
> Sorry this is a bit long.........

No need to apologize.

Quote:
> We live in Ontario and had our own experience with a dog bite at the
> beginning of summer. We live in a duplex with shared property. The people
> in the upper apartment own two dogs and we have our yellow lab Brandi. One
> of the neighbour's dogs is a lab/spaniel cross, the other is a boxer/pit
> bull cross. They also regularly have his brother's dog there which is also
> a boxer/pit bull cross. The lab cross is chained outside 24/7 unless it is
> storming or snowing.

That is so sad really. I wonder if there is a way to have the dog taken away
from them. They obviously don't want it.

Quote:
> he lunged at her and grabbed her by the hand, piercing the skin. He
> released his grip and as she started to remove her hand from his mouth he
> bit down even harder and tried to shake her hand. I will never forget the
> look of terror in her eyes as she turned her face to me and screamed.

I can't even imagine how scared I would have been in either of your
positions. I know if Erwin doesn't want to let go of something, he has a
heck of a lot of power behind his jaw. I can't imagine this intentionally
closed around my hand. I know there would be no way I could disengage myself
if I were in that situation.
I wonder if something else had happend earlier in the day that you might not
have been privy to? Maybe someone was abusing the dog earlier in the day.
Obviously this is not typical behaviour with your daughter.

Quote:
> All this took a matter of seconds to happen. As I got up to him he
> released her. Luckily her boyfriend's mother hadn't pulled out yet and is
> a nurse. We spent 3 hours at the hospital getting her hand glued shut (the
> tears were to jagged for stitches). If the tooth that pierced the top of
> her hand had been about 2mm farther up the hand it would have meant a
> major hospital stay as he came that close to hitting a major artery in her
> hand.

Thankful for small mercies.

Quote:
> The one thing I do know about Ontario Law is that if someone comes into
> the hospital for a dog bite it is automatically reported to the local
> health unit who then orders the dog quarantined.

Personally if I were in charge, with a serious bite like that given that
situation, I would have in place some kind of mandatory training for the
owners/dog in which they would be encouraged to give up the dog (i.e. might
be the best for the dog)

Quote:
> Our local by-laws require that the dog be quarantined for 14 days whether
> they are up to date on their shots or not. In turn the dog is usually
> investigated by the local animal control officer, especially when the dog
> has more then one bite report against it. The officer can then make orders
> against the dog if it is deamed that he is aggressive. These orders can
> include muzzling or being penned where they can not have access to
> children or other animals.
> They cannot order the dog destroyed, that can only be done by a judge.

> Now I do not blame the dog for his behaviour. I blame the owners.

Me too. I think any dog has the potential to be well behaved, I don't care
what the breed is as long as the owners are commited enough to the process.
This isn't to say that there aren't breeds more prone to aggressive
behavior, but in getting that breed the owners have to know what they are
getting in for.

Quote:
> These are people who should not own a dog let alone two of them.

Agreed, who wants to bet that they were impulse bought at the pet store
because they were "cute".

Quote:
> This dog got little to no attention other then from the kids when he was
> their only dog. When they brought home the boxer/pit cross as a small
> puppy, all attention was given to the puppy and the lab cross was
> virtually ignored other then feeding him once a day and changing his water
> every other day. He sits chained to his dog house and watches as the puppy
> got lots and lots of attention. Unfortunately this dog will probably bite
> again as long as he is owned by these people. He now has two reports
> against him with the health unit.

Does this mean that he's bitten before? Seems awfully negligent of the
owners not to take appropriate steps if this was the case (actually seems a
little irresponsible of animal control to allow this to continue. Were any
steps taken to ensure that the situation didn't repeat itself (if not, this
would upset me even more than the dog biting in the first place).

Dale

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Dale Atki » Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:38:01


Oh one more thing, I am curious what you think of the pit-bull by-law?
You're probably better versed in it, and the implications than I am, and I
would value your opinion.
From what I know about it, I agree with Steph (other poster on the same
thread) it doesn't seem like a good solution, but most of what I know comes
through the media.
To me it seems like you're addressing a symptom, and not the disease. The
owners of these dogs are the problem. They haven't done their homework and
probably won't.
I feel that ANY dog that is impulse bought probably has a higher than normal
potential to be aggresive.
I think maybe I'd ban pit-bulls, and pit-bull crosses from being sold in pet
stores, and maybe set controls over who can breed them, further maybe place
some onus on the breeder to make sure that the dogs go to people who know
what they are getting in to.

Just my two cents.

Dale

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by jeff » Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:59:11



Quote:
> Oh one more thing, I am curious what you think of the pit-bull by-law?
> You're probably better versed in it, and the implications than I am, and I
> would value your opinion.
> From what I know about it, I agree with Steph (other poster on the same
> thread) it doesn't seem like a good solution, but most of what I know
> comes through the media.
> To me it seems like you're addressing a symptom, and not the disease. The
> owners of these dogs are the problem. They haven't done their homework and
> probably won't.
> I feel that ANY dog that is impulse bought probably has a higher than
> normal potential to be aggresive.
> I think maybe I'd ban pit-bulls, and pit-bull crosses from being sold in
> pet stores, and maybe set controls over who can breed them, further maybe
> place some onus on the breeder to make sure that the dogs go to people who
> know what they are getting in to.

> Just my two cents.

> Dale

Right, Dale.   I applaud both your synopsis and approach to the problem.
 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Kim Beverl » Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:52:18


It will vary from municipality to municipality and then provincial/federal
IF its outlined at all.
Cheers

--
Kim and the Pirate Labradors
Sutton, ON Canada

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Karen » Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:02:38


Quote:

> Does this mean that he's bitten before? Seems awfully negligent of the
> owners not to take appropriate steps if this was the case (actually seems a
> little irresponsible of animal control to allow this to continue. Were any
> steps taken to ensure that the situation didn't repeat itself (if not, this
> would upset me even more than the dog biting in the first place).

> Dale

Yes the dog has bitten before and the first time it was the owner's
daughter who was 2 years old at the time. It too required a trip to the
hospital, that is the only reason that it was reported. Unfortunately
Animal Control's hands are tied. They can neither order a dog removed or
order a dog destroyed. The only thing they can do is to order the dog to
be muzzled or put in a pen. I tried to push for one or the other but
neither has happened and the dog continues to live under the same
circumstances as before the bite happened. He is still chained up beside
the garage and the only attention he gets is when they come out to feed
him once a day or when they take him in at night.

I am still upset by the situation and Animal Control seems to have
closed the case. My kids stay completely away from the dog. It has been
5 months since the bite and my daughter is still terrified of the dog.
The sad thing is she was never scared of any dog prior to this. She was
raised as a baby around a GS and we've had our lab for 4 1/2 years now.
We did have an episode a few weeks back where the lab/spaniel cross that
bit her got loose (he pulled his chain right off his house). My
daughter's boyfriend came running in the house yelling that the dog was
loose. I went out and grabbed his chain and my husband and I found
another sport to chain him up. We found our 16 year old daughter
cowering in the corner of the yard at the house next door. They have
been warned that next time I will let the dog go and I will call Animal
Control and the police to inform them that there is an aggressive dog
loose. It may be the only way to have the dog removed from the home. If
I know the neighbours they will deny that their dog is aggressive, but I
have photos of my daughter's hand and a hospital report to back me up.
If there was a way I could get this dog taken away from them I would,
but unless he bites again which I hope he won't my hands seem to be tied
too.

Karen G.

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Karen » Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:49:15


Quote:

> Oh one more thing, I am curious what you think of the pit-bull by-law?
> You're probably better versed in it, and the implications than I am, and I
> would value your opinion.
> From what I know about it, I agree with Steph (other poster on the same
> thread) it doesn't seem like a good solution, but most of what I know comes
> through the media.
> To me it seems like you're addressing a symptom, and not the disease. The
> owners of these dogs are the problem. They haven't done their homework and
> probably won't.
> I feel that ANY dog that is impulse bought probably has a higher than normal
> potential to be aggresive.
> I think maybe I'd ban pit-bulls, and pit-bull crosses from being sold in pet
> stores, and maybe set controls over who can breed them, further maybe place
> some onus on the breeder to make sure that the dogs go to people who know
> what they are getting in to.

> Just my two cents.

> Dale

I think there are alot of pros and cons involved in this law. I have
read all the proposed changes and there are alot of things in there that
I agree with. Most of the changes in the dog law apply to all dog breeds
but as far as the pit-bull part of it, I do agree that the dogs should
be muzzled when in public and I do agree that they should be spayed or
neutered. Some people may not like my view on this, but in my opinion
pit-bulls are ticking time bombs. So many people want to blame the
owner, that it is the owner's fault if the dog is aggressive. If this is
the case then how do you explain the elderly couple that owned three
dogs, one being a pit-bull. The pit attacked one of their other dogs and
in the act of trying to break up the dogs the elderly couple was
attacked by their own pit, or the man in Toronto who was attacked by the
2 pits he was walking for a friend. He wasn't a stranger to these dogs,
he was their breeder. The dogs knew him and he knew the dogs and in
return he almost lost his life. Neither of these were cases of bad
owners and these are only two examples of cases where they were good dog
owners but the dogs turned on them anyways.

The one part of the law that I might consider over the top would be
requiring pit owners to have $1 million liability insurance. In Windsor
  (the closest city to me) they enacted a pit-bull ban a few months ago.
Their law required all pit owners to have their dogs registered with the
city by a certain date,the dogs had to be spayed or neutered and must be
muzzled while in public. They also had to prove they had the liability
insurance. Alot of these dog owners are ***s or young ***s. Most of
them couldn't afford the insurance. Within days of the final
registration date the local animal shelter was over flowing with
pit-bulls. They did their best to adopt out the dogs to people in other
communities, but with the looming provincial law that was hard to do.
Alot of pits ended up being put down.

I have also looked at the statistics for cities across Canada that have
banned pit-bulls and all of their reports of dog bites have greatly
decreased since banning the breed. Some have gone from having 30-40
reports per year to only 5 or 6. Yes I realise that pit-bull attacks are
more prone to media attention than any other breed and yes I realise
that any breed of dog can be aggressive, but most pit attacks are
vicious attacks causing alot of damage. I am one that believes they
should be banned.

But that's just my two cents worth.

Karen G.

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Dale Atki » Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:59:55


I wonder if it might be time to get a lawyer involved.

Dale


Quote:

>> Does this mean that he's bitten before? Seems awfully negligent of the
>> owners not to take appropriate steps if this was the case (actually seems
>> a little irresponsible of animal control to allow this to continue. Were
>> any steps taken to ensure that the situation didn't repeat itself (if
>> not, this would upset me even more than the dog biting in the first
>> place).

>> Dale

> Yes the dog has bitten before and the first time it was the owner's
> daughter who was 2 years old at the time. It too required a trip to the
> hospital, that is the only reason that it was reported. Unfortunately
> Animal Control's hands are tied. They can neither order a dog removed or
> order a dog destroyed. The only thing they can do is to order the dog to
> be muzzled or put in a pen. I tried to push for one or the other but
> neither has happened and the dog continues to live under the same
> circumstances as before the bite happened. He is still chained up beside
> the garage and the only attention he gets is when they come out to feed
> him once a day or when they take him in at night.

> I am still upset by the situation and Animal Control seems to have closed
> the case. My kids stay completely away from the dog. It has been 5 months
> since the bite and my daughter is still terrified of the dog. The sad
> thing is she was never scared of any dog prior to this. She was raised as
> a baby around a GS and we've had our lab for 4 1/2 years now. We did have
> an episode a few weeks back where the lab/spaniel cross that bit her got
> loose (he pulled his chain right off his house). My daughter's boyfriend
> came running in the house yelling that the dog was loose. I went out and
> grabbed his chain and my husband and I found another sport to chain him
> up. We found our 16 year old daughter cowering in the corner of the yard
> at the house next door. They have been warned that next time I will let
> the dog go and I will call Animal Control and the police to inform them
> that there is an aggressive dog loose. It may be the only way to have the
> dog removed from the home. If I know the neighbours they will deny that
> their dog is aggressive, but I have photos of my daughter's hand and a
> hospital report to back me up. If there was a way I could get this dog
> taken away from them I would, but unless he bites again which I hope he
> won't my hands seem to be tied too.

> Karen G.

 
 
 

Legal Definition of a Bite?

Post by Dale Atki » Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:37:35


As I suspected, you do have interesting and informed things to say on the
subject.
I wonder, do you know how old the oldest of these pitbull bans is? I would
guess that in order to know one way or the other if it is going to be
effective in the long term one would have to wait several years.
Initially there will obviously be a reduction in incidents due to the people
giving up their dogs. But will they go out and get another breed and
mistreat it and then it becomes aggressive? I would guess at least three or
four years would be required to tell one way or the other. I probably would
have made the million in liability insurance that owners have to carry apply
only to new dogs, or dogs that have had previous biting episodes. (this
would encourage people who have had dogs that bite to give them up), but
maybe not carry this over to new owners of rescue dogs. This would ensure
that those getting the dogs have some idea of what they are getting in to,
but still give them a chance to be re-homed. Of course this presuposes that
a biting episode that gets reported is a major incident.

I know yours was, but I can't help but wonder how many people might register
a minor incident, just out of spite. I know Erwin can have a bit of a rough
mouth sometimes, but he has never inflicted any serious harm on anyone, but
he has broken the skin to the tune of a small cut. He has never attacked
anyone either, just a result of over-exuberance. I'm soooooo happy to see
you, or I reallllly don't want to give up that chicken bone I just stole,
but I can imagine some jackass filing this as a bite report, and then having
to carry huge amounts of insurance. (right now his problems with greetings
are confined to grabbing sleeves while being stroked, and the occaisional
jumping up as a result of not getting the attention he wants, we're working
on both right now)

I really don't know, it is a sticky situation. I think we're all a little
overly sensitive in here, as we could just imagine that some of these laws
might eventually apply to our dogs. I can just imagine a law going through
that concludes that black labs have a higher aggression rate than yellows or
chocolates, so we'll ban black labs :( Not overly likely, or rational, but
who said we have to be rational.

Dale


Quote:

>> Oh one more thing, I am curious what you think of the pit-bull by-law?
>> You're probably better versed in it, and the implications than I am, and
>> I would value your opinion.
>> From what I know about it, I agree with Steph (other poster on the same
>> thread) it doesn't seem like a good solution, but most of what I know
>> comes through the media.
>> To me it seems like you're addressing a symptom, and not the disease. The
>> owners of these dogs are the problem. They haven't done their homework
>> and probably won't.
>> I feel that ANY dog that is impulse bought probably has a higher than
>> normal potential to be aggresive.
>> I think maybe I'd ban pit-bulls, and pit-bull crosses from being sold in
>> pet stores, and maybe set controls over who can breed them, further maybe
>> place some onus on the breeder to make sure that the dogs go to people
>> who know what they are getting in to.

>> Just my two cents.

>> Dale
> I think there are alot of pros and cons involved in this law. I have read
> all the proposed changes and there are alot of things in there that I
> agree with. Most of the changes in the dog law apply to all dog breeds but
> as far as the pit-bull part of it, I do agree that the dogs should be
> muzzled when in public and I do agree that they should be spayed or
> neutered. Some people may not like my view on this, but in my opinion
> pit-bulls are ticking time bombs. So many people want to blame the owner,
> that it is the owner's fault if the dog is aggressive. If this is the case
> then how do you explain the elderly couple that owned three dogs, one
> being a pit-bull. The pit attacked one of their other dogs and in the act
> of trying to break up the dogs the elderly couple was attacked by their
> own pit, or the man in Toronto who was attacked by the 2 pits he was
> walking for a friend. He wasn't a stranger to these dogs, he was their
> breeder. The dogs knew him and he knew the dogs and in return he almost
> lost his life. Neither of these were cases of bad owners and these are
> only two examples of cases where they were good dog owners but the dogs
> turned on them anyways.

> The one part of the law that I might consider over the top would be
> requiring pit owners to have $1 million liability insurance. In Windsor
> (the closest city to me) they enacted a pit-bull ban a few months ago.
> Their law required all pit owners to have their dogs registered with the
> city by a certain date,the dogs had to be spayed or neutered and must be
> muzzled while in public. They also had to prove they had the liability
> insurance. Alot of these dog owners are ***s or young ***s. Most of
> them couldn't afford the insurance. Within days of the final registration
> date the local animal shelter was over flowing with pit-bulls. They did
> their best to adopt out the dogs to people in other communities, but with
> the looming provincial law that was hard to do. Alot of pits ended up
> being put down.

> I have also looked at the statistics for cities across Canada that have
> banned pit-bulls and all of their reports of dog bites have greatly
> decreased since banning the breed. Some have gone from having 30-40
> reports per year to only 5 or 6. Yes I realise that pit-bull attacks are
> more prone to media attention than any other breed and yes I realise that
> any breed of dog can be aggressive, but most pit attacks are vicious
> attacks causing alot of damage. I am one that believes they should be
> banned.

> But that's just my two cents worth.

> Karen G.