posted 02-20-2003 02:42 PM            

Hi Shmoopie,
I think/hope Albert has changed his thoughts about APBT since the time/date of all that ruckus in this thread.

He has asked his questions more delicately, respectfully and knowledgeably since that time. He has also shown interest to learn more about this breed. For this I am happy.

Here is the BSL clip you are talking about.
********************************************
Mike Roberts
The Province

One couple's crusade to get vicious dogs off the streets of Vancouver
sparked a raging debate last week with hundreds of readers from across the
Lower Mainland weighing in on the issue of breed-banning pit bulls and
Rottweilers.

Last Sunday, I told you about Andrew Kurkowski's efforts to have the beasts
banned from the city after his wife, Magda Posch, was mauled by two pit
bulls while walking her small dogs through the West End.

Posch was rescued from the runaway brutes by brave passers-by who intervened
on her behalf. She escaped with a badly torn nose.

The owner of the dogs was fined $400 for having two aggressive dogs off
leash. The pit bull that savaged Posch is being monitored at the Vancouver
Pound, where it has displayed relentless aggression. The dog will be
euthanized in two weeks.

The column generated an unprecedented amount of e-mail. While I was unable
to answer it all, I did forward your letters of support to Kurkowski and
Posch.

"Usually I get involved with an issue and I think about it and rationalize
it and in a couple of days it goes away," says Kurkowski, who was
overwhelmed by the positive response to his crusade. "But this is not going
to go away. It's so close to home. My wife could have been seriously hurt,
our dog could have been killed. I'm not going to back down."

Kurkowski and Posch are committed to a city-wide breed ban on pit bulls. In
the meantime, they would like to see fines increased and the leash and
muzzle laws properly enforced.

"There's a $2,000 fine for having a dog, any dog, on the beach, yet a pit
bull off the leash in the city streets, the fine's only $200," says
Kurkowski.

Not all the responses to Kurkowski's crusade were supportive. Some readers
argued that it is the owners, not the animals, who are responsible. Others
suggested all dogs bite, not just "pits" and "rotties," as they cutely refer
to these dogs.

Sure, many dogs bite. But we're talking about marauding maulers here, not
ankle-biting lap dogs. And, unlike other dogs, pit bulls and Rottweilers are
genetically programmed to attack other animals and humans. Many of them are
bred for that purpose.

Retired plastic surgeon Dr. Dale Greene is eager to sign Kurkowski's
petition. "I saw too many dog bites in my practice," he told me. "We would
get the really vicious ones, the pit-bull bites." Greene said the cost to
the medical system is "incredible."

He adds: "I think this is really a political issue, not a medical issue.
Without politicians you aren't going to get any action." Which is precisely
why Kurkowski is taking the fight to Vancouver City Hall.

The City of Vancouver must get in line with other cities across North
America and around the world, cities that have implemented bylaws banning
these beasts from urban settings.

The crusading couple welcomes your comments and support at mposch@shaw.ca.

mroberts@png.canwest.com

********************************************

This is a letter written and sent to the victims from a lady named Robin who is in another forum I go to.

Hello,
I recently read of your attempt to enact BSL in Vancouver. I
understand your reasons and am sorry for your attack. However, what you
must understand that the attempt to enact Breed Specific Legisation is an
over simplified, knee jerk response to an extremely complicated problem.
There are infinite reasons why it not only will not, but can not, solve
anything.
I am an American, and thus not overly familiar with Canadian
statistics, but I think I can make my point using American statistics. The
Pit Bull is now the most registered breed in the U.S. yet they are still
not at the top of the list of dogs responsible for attacks. Factor in the
FACT that many attacks attributed to pit bulls were not actually pit bulls
at all (look at this link to see what I mean http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html) The truth of the
matter is that the media loves to report ANY incident involving a "pit bull"
but they do not bother to verify the breed. All that this negative
publicity does,is make this breed more attractive to certain criminal
elements who want a "vicious" dog.
The pit bull is one of the most trainable dogs around. Presently
you will find pit bulls working as companions to the handicapped, seeing eye
dogs, search and rescue dogs, police dogs, drug and bomb sniffing dogs, etc.
This trainability, in the wrong hands, can also turn them into vicious
attackers. Unfortunately, outlawing specific breeds will NOT keep them out
of the wrong hands. Criminals will always find a way to get what they want,
be it guns, drugs, or pit bulls. BSL will only keep these loving and
intelligent dogs out of the hands of responsible owners.
Twenty years ago, before this dog became the dog of choice for every
drug dealer, gang member and other undesirables who wanted a "bad" dog to
further their "bad" image. The pit bull was known in the animal community as
the "nanny dog" because they are so even tempered and gentle with people,
you could trust your children to them. Point being, in responsible hands,
this dog is no more dangerous to people than any other dog.
Yes, when people train these dogs to be mean, or when they are
abusive towards them, they can be turned into vicious killers. This can
also be said for EVERY other dog breed. Take for instance the pomeranian
who killed a six week old infant in 2001. Clearly these dogs CAN be turned
into weapons, but as with any weapon, you should punish the owner, not the
breed as a whole. People who raise these dogs to be vicious should be
prosecuted like the criminals they are. If their dog attacks someone it
should be a felony, with prison time. A $200 fine is a rediculous insult to
you and the rest of the population put in danger by irresponsible owners.
You should have the right to walk in the park in safety, but taking
away my right to own a beautiful, intelligent, and loving dog will not
ensure your safety. I, a responsible owner, have a pit bull/ shar-pei mix
(both breeds are fighting dogs that would be impacted by breed specific
legislation) She goes to work with me once a week where I do therapy in a
nursing home. She has been invaluable in the recovery of many people. If
you think that I should not be able to have this dog SIMPLY because of what
breed she is; then clearly you are working from a standpoint of anger and
revenge. I urge you to approach this problem with information and logic
only.
I understand that you were walking dogs in the park they day this
happened. No matter what breed of dog you have, I guaruntee that it too has
been responsible for attacks on people, so please be careful about the steps
you take. You take away people's rights to own pit bulls, and your dogs may
well be next.

This is the reply Robin recieved from them.

I recieved a response from the husband of the lady attacked in
Vancouver. He said that for every letter opposed to BSL he received seven
in favor, however he said mine was the most thought provoking against. He
seemed like a very reasonable person just trying to find a solution to a
serious problem. I encourage those of you who are knowlegable and well
spoken to write to him. It's our chance to make a small difference in one
area.

Here are three questions he specifically asked me to answer for him

"1. Why did you choose this dog knowing their bad reputation? Couldn't you
have chosen a different breed?
2. Knowing the situation what would you do if you were in our position? What
would your next step be?
3. How would you get through to the buttheads who ruin a perfectly good
animal and give all the respectable owners a bad name?
Please reply."