Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Ontario Pit Bull ban ineffective according to THS

From CTV Toronto, Pit bull ban not reducing dog bites in Ont.: THS:

Ontario's controversial pit bull ban has not resulted in a significant decrease in the number of dog bites in the province, the Toronto Humane Society claims in a study.


According to the humane society's study, there were 5,428 reported dog bites in 2005, the year the ban came into effect. Here are the numbers since then:

* 2006 - 5,360
* 2007 - 5,492
* 2008 - 5,463
* 2009 - 5,345

I've never trusted the way the THS played with statistics in order to prove a point so I hope these latest figures are well researched.

Some concerns mentioned in the article which might come back to bite them:

The study does not show the number of dog bites compared to the number of dogs in the province. Nor does it adjust for changes to the province's population or for the severity of attacks.

McConachie said the information about dog bites comes from the local health networks, while the number of licensed dogs is tracked by individual municipalities and is not accessible without filing access to information requests.

“It’s possible the number of dogs could have gone up,” McConachie told CTV News. “It’s also possible the number of dogs could have stayed the same.”


Meaghan Edwards said...

No surprise. I've also noticed an increase number of loose dogs since this law came into effect.

Anonymous said...

Funny that. 'Course, could be that Pit Bulls, for all the publicity, aren't big biters. A couple of years ago, I read a survey from another part of Canada that showed the number one biters were Golden Retrievers. The reason being that Goldens were also the most common dogs.

It's the owners, Big Brother, not the dogs, you need to worry about.

Michelle said...

I just finished posting 2 pictures of Dingle on my blog - of him and one of his closest friends, a pitbull.

Who would I trust more? Lexi the pitbull or Dingle the pomeranian? Lexi.

The pitbull ban is awful.

Anonymous said...

Here again is the THS old board and management trying a diversionary tactic to take the pressure off themeselves. Please refer to the Globe and Mail editorial that recently came out concerning the THS misrepresentation of the stats.
And, by the way, I get it, the pit bull ban is wrong. But really it was a response to bad pet owners like the THS who kept Bandit aloive after he mauled a child and let him maul several other people. Like the cliche goes, "punish the deed, not the breed". What that means is that owners of vicious animals should be held criminally and civially responsible for their pets - and none of this "the person asked for it" or, the dog was taunted, nonsense, or, "I've never seen him behave that way". Responsiblity means owning up and taking action when one spots viciousness in one's animals. Putting them down if necessary, and certainly muzzling them when appropriate.

Justin said...

So I'm a little late commenting, but I'm just doing some research on the ban on this came up. I decided to say something, just to vent because reading about the ban has made me so mad.

I completely agree with the person who said it's the owners, not the dogs. ANY dog will bite someone if the circumstances are right. There have been cases where much smaller dogs have killed people. I believe it was in 2007, a chihuahua killed a 7 month old baby. Does that mean we should ban chihuahua's too? No, it means the owner is not fit to be owning a dog.

The part that gets me about the ban is if you read about it on Ontario's website, it states that even if you're passing through Ontario with a pitbull, and have no knowledge of the ban, you are considered to be importing the dog, and can receive a maximum fine of 10,000 dollars and even up to 6 months in jail.

I almost want to go and get a pitbull pup from out-of-province just to stick it in their face, but I'd feel horrible if they managed to find out and put him/her down. Anyways, that's my rant.