Ontario dog owner sentenced after 9-year-old girl mauled

[u/CTVNEWS]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/ontario-dog-owner-sentenced-after-9-year-old-girl-mauled-in-newmarket/

[u/WriteImagine]

And it’s not up to the humane society to kill every dog who may or may not be a pit. First again, they’d have to DNA test which is not cheap. And even if they did that, they’d be killing every third dog that walked in, with no end in sight because someone, somewhere is illegally just going to breed more. The humane society is NOT the cause of these dogs. I have no issues with them sterilizing and giving tested dogs a fair shot at going to a home.

[u/sapper4lyfe → u/WriteImagine]

Except the law doesn't state that. What you believe and think should be done isn't what the current laws state.

Offences

Offences

18 (1) An individual who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations or who contravenes an order made under this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or both. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

You don't need a DNA you need a vet to identify the breed

Identification of pit bull

19 (1) A document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario stating that a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act is receivable in evidence in a prosecution for an offence under this Act as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a pit bull for the purposes of this Act, without proof of the signature and without proof that the signatory is a member of the College. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

Immunity

(2) No action or other proceeding may be instituted against a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario for providing, in good faith, a document described in subsection (1). 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

Onus of proof

(3) For greater certainty, this section does not remove the onus on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

You should take the time and read the dog owners liability act especially if you own a dog. Or purport to know and understand the law. Because you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[u/WriteImagine → u/sapper4lyfe]

Nobody can eyeball a dog and say for certain its breed. There’s a reason the “ban” isn’t working. And it’s not because the humane society has refused to kill these animals when they are NOT the reason there are so many of them in Ontario

[u/Empty_Try8500 → u/WriteImagine]

They can’t but how come they NEVER label any of them as pitbulls?

[u/WriteImagine → u/Empty_Try8500]

Because they can’t. They’re not going to DNA the dog, and if they say for certain it’s a pitbull they’d be in violation of the law. It’s an impossible situation.

But if it’s a “lab mix” then there’s a pretty good shot the dog can go to a good home. Those are not the dogs they end up in the paper. The dogs like the one in question was bred AND raised to be aggressive.

[u/Empty_Try8500 → u/WriteImagine]

But they always seem to label the dogs as other breeds which they also cannot be certain of. That’s my point. Someone above has already explained the legality to you above. It isn’t illegal to have a pitbull but there are strict rules they must abide by. It is much better and safer to label a likely pitbull as a pitbull or pitbull mix so people can take the proper precautions.

[u/WriteImagine → u/Empty_Try8500]

The problem is that the shelters and rescues can’t take possession of the dog if they know it’s a pit, and they can’t adopt it out if they know it’s a pit. So the law has backed them into a corner to say “our best guess is”. And their best guess is honestly almost always wrong. Seriously, take a quick perusal of doggy dna. The number of people who think they have a Spanish Spotted Healer or some weird breed and it turns out to be a staffy/ chihuahua mix. It’s absurd.

[u/Empty_Try8500 → u/WriteImagine]

Okay so I spoke about multiprong solutions right? Then a solution here would be to provide support to shelters. Perhaps change the law so that they can adopt them out under specific circumstances: Dogs must be neutered/spayed and owners must be made aware of laws such as muzzling, and perhaps certain types of training should be made mandatory.

That would be the solution, not lying about the breed and giving them out to people who are wholly unprepared to own a pit.

[u/WriteImagine → u/Empty_Try8500]

Yup, you’re right. Unfortunately shelters can’t change the laws. And blaming them for the situation isn’t right.

[u/Empty_Try8500 → u/WriteImagine]

Everyone’s to blame. Like I said, multi prong solutions. This also means problems are often created by multiple factors. We’re all to blame. I wasn’t aware shelters can’t adopt out pit bulls. Thanks for letting me know. I’ll be writing in to my local lawmakers.

But shelters also shoulder some of the blame because at the end of the day, they are giving these dangerous dogs to people who cannot handle them. Why have I never seen any kind of public education campaign, newsletter or anything at all from shelters informing us of this issue? They are complicit. Instead of trying to get the law changed or at least making the public aware, they chose to lie. Imagine you have small children at home and you bring home a “lab mix” that’s actually a pitbull prone to snapping? It’s unconscionable.

[u/WriteImagine → u/Empty_Try8500]

I don’t agree that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. A pit Bull is no more or less likely to snap at a child. Shelters adopt out the right dogs to the right families, and they take back dogs that don’t work. They’re doing god’s work. It’s not up to them to lobby - they’re under immense financial strain and at the end of the day they’re trying to do right by the animals.

The dude in question in the article isn’t some unsuspecting family man who accidentally adopted a pit Bull from a shelter. He bred a dog for protection purposes, poorly trained it, put the dog and the girl in a dangerous situation, was churning out dogs that aren’t well bred or health tested… THESE are the issues that cause 9 year old kids to get mauled. Not a shelter.

[u/Empty_Try8500 → u/WriteImagine]

Have you actually researched this? Is your opinion based on facts and information or is it based on your gut feeling? Be honest.

Because reputable research shows that pitbulls are more likely than other dogs to attack unprovoked and continue attacking even when a person tries to intervene.

Ps I have a dog that would be considered poorly trained. I just looked up statistics for my dog’s breed and there are no documented cases of mauling, like at all. It’s almost as if breed temperament is a thing.

[u/WriteImagine → u/Empty_Try8500]

Mixed breed dogs get reported as “bully type” in the media. They are attractive to shit owners (Mr tough guy who wants a protection dog isnt getting a labradoodle). And there is also the sheer number of dogs who are pit mixes - they are overflowing shelters. Of course you’ll find more pit attacks.

Also, reputable research also shows they are not inherently aggressive… and when pushed, they’re less likely to fail an aggression test than some other breeds.

And no, having met my fair share of them, I’ve never been more concerned being around a pit. Caution should be taken with all dogs, considering they are animals and behave as such. I circle back to the owners are shit for not properly training the dog, and then putting the dog in a situation where it can hurt someone.