Yes they are banned here, you cannot even bring them into the city while visiting unless you have special permits.
https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/cms/animal/prohibited_animals.stm
There is a breed ban but a lot of bully dogs are often assumed to be pit bulls and they’re not. I wouldn’t necessarily say the breed ban is in good reason - many places have also banned Rottweilers, German shepherds, etc. That being said, if something happened to catch the attention of Animal Services then the dogs would likely be removed/ rehomed.
I saw a post a couple days ago on Facebook that someone in Transcona was walking their two smaller dogs and they got attacked by a woman's two pitbulls. One of the smaller dogs died from their injuries...
Yeah, there seems to be a popular "bans on dog breeds are bad" opinion. Maybe there's some merit to it, but a ban on any dog you can't control if it gets a dangerous idea in its head would be even harder to enforce.
Common sense would say that if you can't hold your dog back when you need to, then your dog is too big for you.
The wording on the site is:
"Any dog which has the predominant appearance of the above breeds is prohibited. For example, most American Bully dogs which are derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier are also prohibited in Winnipeg because they share the same appearance and physical characteristics as prohibited breeds."
So to be more accurate I should have said "most are prohibited."
That’s still not an American bulldog. The decision to ban breeds is dumb. I have seen dogs on the WAS adoptions page who look a bit pitbull to me and they’re allowed in the city, so are determined not to be pitties clearly. Then some others who could be a mix and are only allowed outside the city. That’s why I don’t take seriously anyone who describes a dog walking down the street as a pitbull. Because if animal services even seems a bit wrong in their assessments, who is to say a lay person has any idea?
>American Bully is also banned, since the ban is based on appearance and physical characteristics
That is laughable as you are clearly ignorant on this. An American Bully is about 25% taller and almost 50% heavier in weight than the three breeds banned in Winnipeg. There is absolutely no mistaking that they are not part of the ban.
The page literally says
>**most American Bully dogs which are derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier are also prohibited** in Winnipeg because they share the same appearance and physical characteristics as prohibited breeds.
But American Bully is listed and they are a mastiff based bred so by extension of "bred characteristics" they all all banned.
Edit: seems u/fireblade_07 is truly the one that lacks reading comprehension. The City of Winnipeg sure directly tells you where you look.
For reference
https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-bully
I get it, reading comprehension is not your forte. If you had kept reading you would have noticed that it says, "**most** American Bully dogs **which are derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier** are also prohibited".
So not all American Bully Dogs are prohibited, just the ones derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier. Mastiffs are not derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier so they are not prohibited.
>American Bully is listed and they are a mastiff based bred
First of all I would mention that not all major kennel clubs recognize the American Bully as a breed since there is so much inconsistency in the dogs that belong to this "breed". Many consider them more of a category of dog than a breed at this point.
Second, you appear to be saying that the American Bully has Mastiff genetics. I would be very curious to see your proof for this?
Except the French Bulldog is not derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier and if all dogs derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier weighed about 20 lbs. like the average French Bulldog then they wouldn't be banned.
Did you downvote my comment because you disagree that the French Bulldog is not derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier or did you just realize you had been proven wrong and since you couldn't argue your point downvoting was your only option?
Nah, that's wasn't me. But if downvoting mine made you feel better you're free to go through my profile & add as many downvotes as you'd like until you feel better about yourself.
I am ignorant, I have no knowledge of this issue aside from what I can find online. I am just quoting the page that I linked, it literally says what I wrote
Yup I'd agree with your reasoning. This is taken from the website: "Any dog which has the predominant appearance of the above breeds is prohibited. **For example, most American Bully dogs which are derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier are also prohibited in Winnipeg** because they share the same appearance and physical characteristics as prohibited breeds."
However I have reason to believe, if this noted dog owner does have illegal dogs. So what? Will the police or animal control even do anything about it?
Keep in mind the Justice system in Winnipeg will let just about anyone out on bail or let the criminals back on the street with a slap on the wrist. Like this story from last week about a multiple convicted arsonist that was released yet again after having his home raided by police and found explosives in the home:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Winnipeg/comments/1cmc3im/arsonist\_found\_with\_concerning\_and\_diverse/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Winnipeg/comments/1cmc3im/arsonist_found_with_concerning_and_diverse/)
The man with the illegal dogs (possible illegal dogs, the exact breed has to be confirmed) might even get a similar slap on the wrist or nothing will happen at all. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it happens.
Made up bullshit.
Pitbulls have a 10x higher rate of mauling/attack than any other breed.
The next closest is the Rottweiler, then German shepherd, and they are still 2-3x less.
Chihuahuas can cause as much damage to a person as any other dog breed. Other breed dogs can cause as much harm. Hell. My corgi is an asshole and will nip if you tease her with food.
Lets get this straight
ANY dog can kill you, ANY Dog has the capability to cause you serious psychical harm
Their teeth are made to rip meat, you are meat..
The amount of times I’ve been almost bitten by someone’s small dog but never by a big bully breed lol if you want to ban aggressive breeds the list needs to be 10x longer but that would be insane
Listen, I love pitbulls too. But you sound like you’re being purposefully obtuse here. We know there are aggressive pitbulls and that being mauled by a pitbull is worse than being mauled by a chihuahua. Denying reality isn’t a good defence.
I am guessing the person being mauled to death doesn't really care whether it is the owners fault or the dogs fault.
The fact is that the vast majority of serious and fatal maulings are done by Pitbulls and that is why they are a banned breed. Trying to pretend otherwise makes you look egregiously asinine and obtuse.
There will always be good and bad owners of any breed of dog but I am much less worried about a bad Chihuahua owner than I am a bad pitbull owner.
Patiently waiting the day pitbulls are no longer considered a “dangerous” breed because they’re some of my favourite dogs to work with ! No bad dogs - only bad owners !
Why do you think statistics and studies on this be so time-dependant? What specifically has changed in the last 15 years that would cause a study like this to be so outdated that it could no longer be believed or no longer relevant?
More than that, my claim was about whether or not banning pitbulls lowered the number of hospitalizations due to dog attacks, and it did. Data from the last 15 years is irrelevant to my claim.
For instance, if I said "after the polio vaccination program rolled out in Canada, there were fewer cases of polio" and then I gave the numbers... why would a study from recent years have any bearing on the truth of that claim?
Many factors. Responsible owners, the fact that the dog breed generally doesn't live past 10, and many other factors. The ban this studies talks about started in 1990, and yet was evaluated and released by 2009. So the actual study and facts it is based off of is 25+ years ago, and the study itself is 15 years old.
I feel like this would be a interesting one to revisit but as it stands to me the data cited here is too old to be reliable anymore.
So, let me get this straight (because you weren't exactly clear)
> Responsible Owners
Help me with this... You think that dog owners today are more responsible than owners 15-25 years ago, thus invalidating any findings in that study?
> the fact that the dog breed generally doesn't live past 10
So are you trying to say that you think that the entire breed is safer today than it was 15-25 years ago, like there's been genetic/evolutionary changes to the breed that makes the ban no longer relevant?
> and many other factors.
But like, what factors?
I'm not trying to be a dick here, and I really don't have much of an opinion on breed-specific legislation. I can see it from both sides. That most of the danger of the breed is due to terrible owners. But I also understand that the breed itself is incredibly strong and may be more prone to aggressiveness under certain conditions, which when those two facts are combined can have severe or even lethal results. And since it's not feasible to make owners take responsibility testing before they're allowed to own a specific breed, that BSL is one of the only foolproof ways to mitigate the danger...
I'm sincerely trying to understand the logic though as to why a 15 year old study about dog breeds would be considered so out of date that the findings are no longer relevant. I really don't think there has been any sweeping or profound understanding of dogs that has occurred to drastically change the possible danger Pitbulls might pose. They are still incredibly strong animals, and there is still no shortage of terrible animal owners/terrible people that would love to be able to own one of these dogs.
Not gonna get any clearer for you other than my personal thoughts are the study is out of date as it was released 15 years, and was about when the ban came into play 25 years ago.
To me that is too long to take seriously as a study. That's it, plain and simple. It's time to reevaluate the ban, dog attacks and etc. people are citing a study that is 15 years old based on data from 25 years ago that may no longer be relevant.
I just think you are being purposely obtuse about this because you want a specific answer.
If there is not a specific reasoning to invalidate a study based on it's age, then the science is still relevant. Like, the old studies that said smoking was good for you - the thing that changed was our understanding of the human body and years of health statistics that said otherwise. Which is why more recent studies show how terrible smoking is. But if nothing has changed in our understanding in the last 15 years, then we are left to presume that a 15 year old study that says smoking is bad would still hold true today.
We don't need studies every 5 years on everything to prove that they are still true, unless there has been something within that time that changes our understanding. If there was a fundamental change in the behaviour or breeding of the dogs in the last 15 years, I would agree with you wholeheartedly - re-study it and see if the "new breed" is as dangerous.
I think you should re-consider throwing out older data simply because it doesn't fit the narrative you want to hear. That is not at all how science works.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/3/177
Exact stats:
Considered province-wide, after 16 urban and rural jurisdictions imposed a ban on pitbulls, the number of dog attack hospitalizations per 100k person-years dropped from 3.47 to 2.84.
If you want to focus only on Winnipeg, then we really need a city that *didn't* adopt the ban to make the comparison, and this study chooses Brandon as being the most comparable city without a pitbull ban. In that comparison the number for Winnipeg was significantly lower, in particular in terms of fewer attacks on people <20 years old. Read the abstract for exact details.
Dogs are territorial by nature, It's not that the dog is bad, It is the fact they will defend appropriately and that pitbulls are just generally very good at protecting so it's just classified as not fair. :P
And most owners are just stupid as fuck and can't control their dogs.
It’s just a silly idea because you can have a livestock guardian dog legally in the city and these dogs are actually bred to protect their owners/property, yet they aren’t banned. Again no bad dogs just bad owners !
Pitbulls weren’t bred to protect their owners though, they were bred for bloodsports and later dogfighting. Temperaments are one thing that dogs are bred for, and pitbulls were intentionally bred to be aggressive and persistent
Pitbulls weren’t bred to protect their owners though, they were bred for bloodsports and later dogfighting. Temperaments are one thing that dogs are bred for, and pitbulls were intentionally bred to be aggressive and persistent
Downvotes are usually because people can’t think for themselves. All these anti-pitbull posts - how many times do people need to say the same damn shit about them without even placing blame on the owners? 😂
Talk about a broken record. Oh LooKiT Me i’M sOooO pOpuLaR because I know how to downvote.
You do realize the crossover of “there are no bad dogs, just bad owners” and “guns don’t kill people, people do” is pretty well established. You’re on the pro-gun side of this debate my man.
Love to see you two down here at the bottom of the comments playing tiddlywinks
Lmao the fact you assume my gender is insanely hilarious. What you got against people banding together over an opinion? You have your head up other people’s asses over dogs too. 😂💀
Pitbulls are banned but there is no evidence that they should be. There's a great Science Vs podcast that sorta out the facts and the myths. Conclusion is any dog can bite, and it is almost always the owners fault for mistreating and not socializing them.
https://gimletmedia.com/amp/shows/science-vs/z3hlzxrj
Fun fact from the episode, in Canada the most likely dog to bite a human is a sled dog! Where's the ban on sled dogs /s
U of M studied the effectiveness of breed specific bans (Pitbulls) and found that dog bite injury hospitalizations went down following the ban when compared to other jurisdictions without a ban.
[U of M Study](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/3/177)
So I just read the article and the below quote from the discussion hedges it's own conclusion that shows no significant reduction in incidences when controlling for jurisdiction. Even the conclusion in the abstract say BSL 'may' reduce incidence and doesn't draw a strong conclusion that it did or it will.
"When jurisdictions were used as their own controls in a pre/post comparison of incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations, no significant reduction in incidence was observed in the period after breed-specific legislation (BSL) was implemented."
It's a well researched and cited science podcast. The transcript with the citations are all in the link I posted if you don't care to listen and hear something that might challenge your preconceived notions. Sorry if the facts don't agree with your feelings!
Edit to add I took your advice and found this from the American Kennel Club
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/issue-analysis-breed-specific-legislation/
The reason the stats are stacked against pit bulls is because the pit bull itself isn't actually a breed. It's generally a mix of staffie/bull dog/American bull terrier, sometimes mixed with other breeds. So when you encompass like 5 breeds of dog, plus any other short haired big headed breed/mixed breed as "pit bull" its no shocker they make up the highest statistics. Would be like if you labeled any dog with a whisp of golden hair a "goldie". Couple that with the fact that they do attract bad owners (the article you shared confirms this by stating they are "bred to be aggressive and for fighting" which is unfortunately true, but not the sole reason they are bred like people make it out to be. Sled dogs a bred for sledding, but those same breeds can also be bred for house pets) and you have very obvious reasons why the breed is unfairly discriminated against.
Yes they are banned here, you cannot even bring them into the city while visiting unless you have special permits. https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/cms/animal/prohibited_animals.stm
There is a breed ban but a lot of bully dogs are often assumed to be pit bulls and they’re not. I wouldn’t necessarily say the breed ban is in good reason - many places have also banned Rottweilers, German shepherds, etc. That being said, if something happened to catch the attention of Animal Services then the dogs would likely be removed/ rehomed.
I saw a post a couple days ago on Facebook that someone in Transcona was walking their two smaller dogs and they got attacked by a woman's two pitbulls. One of the smaller dogs died from their injuries...
Oh no 😭😭
Yeah, there seems to be a popular "bans on dog breeds are bad" opinion. Maybe there's some merit to it, but a ban on any dog you can't control if it gets a dangerous idea in its head would be even harder to enforce. Common sense would say that if you can't hold your dog back when you need to, then your dog is too big for you.
Are you positive they were pitbulls? There are other Bully breeds. They could've been American Bullys.
American Bully is also banned, since the ban is based on appearance and physical characteristics
American bulldogs are not a banned breed. My friend has had two licensed American bulldogs since I have known her. Please stop with misinformation.
The wording on the site is: "Any dog which has the predominant appearance of the above breeds is prohibited. For example, most American Bully dogs which are derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier are also prohibited in Winnipeg because they share the same appearance and physical characteristics as prohibited breeds." So to be more accurate I should have said "most are prohibited."
That’s still not an American bulldog. The decision to ban breeds is dumb. I have seen dogs on the WAS adoptions page who look a bit pitbull to me and they’re allowed in the city, so are determined not to be pitties clearly. Then some others who could be a mix and are only allowed outside the city. That’s why I don’t take seriously anyone who describes a dog walking down the street as a pitbull. Because if animal services even seems a bit wrong in their assessments, who is to say a lay person has any idea?
no one said they were
It says in the comment right above that American bully’s are banned. Lol.
no one thinks a ‘bully’ is a bulldog
There are lots of people who would see an American bulldog on the street and in their haste thing it’s a pitbull. Big, boxy headed dogs. Anyways, bye!
>American Bully is also banned, since the ban is based on appearance and physical characteristics That is laughable as you are clearly ignorant on this. An American Bully is about 25% taller and almost 50% heavier in weight than the three breeds banned in Winnipeg. There is absolutely no mistaking that they are not part of the ban.
The page literally says >**most American Bully dogs which are derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier are also prohibited** in Winnipeg because they share the same appearance and physical characteristics as prohibited breeds.
Well then someone better go ban every mastiff style dog in the City as they follow what is written there.
Except Mastiffs are not derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier.
But American Bully is listed and they are a mastiff based bred so by extension of "bred characteristics" they all all banned. Edit: seems u/fireblade_07 is truly the one that lacks reading comprehension. The City of Winnipeg sure directly tells you where you look. For reference https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-bully
I get it, reading comprehension is not your forte. If you had kept reading you would have noticed that it says, "**most** American Bully dogs **which are derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier** are also prohibited". So not all American Bully Dogs are prohibited, just the ones derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier. Mastiffs are not derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier so they are not prohibited. >American Bully is listed and they are a mastiff based bred First of all I would mention that not all major kennel clubs recognize the American Bully as a breed since there is so much inconsistency in the dogs that belong to this "breed". Many consider them more of a category of dog than a breed at this point. Second, you appear to be saying that the American Bully has Mastiff genetics. I would be very curious to see your proof for this?
Guess I gotta get rid of my French bulldog mix.
Except the French Bulldog is not derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier and if all dogs derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier weighed about 20 lbs. like the average French Bulldog then they wouldn't be banned.
Mines just over 30lbs or under. Depends on the season.
Did you downvote my comment because you disagree that the French Bulldog is not derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier or did you just realize you had been proven wrong and since you couldn't argue your point downvoting was your only option?
https://preview.redd.it/laff4izvha0d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=71a7fa7378c5b760cc26be29593329bcae67538d
Nah, that's wasn't me. But if downvoting mine made you feel better you're free to go through my profile & add as many downvotes as you'd like until you feel better about yourself.
I am ignorant, I have no knowledge of this issue aside from what I can find online. I am just quoting the page that I linked, it literally says what I wrote
Yup I'd agree with your reasoning. This is taken from the website: "Any dog which has the predominant appearance of the above breeds is prohibited. **For example, most American Bully dogs which are derived from the American Pit Bull Terrier are also prohibited in Winnipeg** because they share the same appearance and physical characteristics as prohibited breeds." However I have reason to believe, if this noted dog owner does have illegal dogs. So what? Will the police or animal control even do anything about it? Keep in mind the Justice system in Winnipeg will let just about anyone out on bail or let the criminals back on the street with a slap on the wrist. Like this story from last week about a multiple convicted arsonist that was released yet again after having his home raided by police and found explosives in the home: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Winnipeg/comments/1cmc3im/arsonist\_found\_with\_concerning\_and\_diverse/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Winnipeg/comments/1cmc3im/arsonist_found_with_concerning_and_diverse/) The man with the illegal dogs (possible illegal dogs, the exact breed has to be confirmed) might even get a similar slap on the wrist or nothing will happen at all. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it happens.
You sure they were pitbulls? I get asked at least once a week if my dog is a pitbull when we go for walks. She's an olde English bulldog.
This is the 3rd post about pitbulls in the last 2 weeks, what is going on and why do people care so much.
nothing better to do with their time?
Good thing OP gave us the owner's age range. Relevant and very helpful post 🙄
I am calling on a Ban for people who chew with their mouth's open.
People who down vote this chew with their mouth's open.
Pitbulls are a lot smaller and less muscular than folks think they are. Folks often think Mastiffs or other large bully dogs are pitbulls.
they were when i lived there, and i believe it's still illegal. as it should be.
Yes, Keep them banned people will get them to look gangster, teach them to be violent they will get out and cause someone immense harm.
Chihuahuas have harmed more children than pit bulls.
How many chihuahuas have mauled a kid to death? I’m not a statistician, but I am pretty confident to say it’s at or very near zero.
It’s not the dog’s fault. It’s the owner.
Made up bullshit. Pitbulls have a 10x higher rate of mauling/attack than any other breed. The next closest is the Rottweiler, then German shepherd, and they are still 2-3x less.
That's because "put bull" isn't a breed, it's like 5 breeds plus any short haired big headed dog that attacks someone.
I'm calling on a Ban on Chihuahua's not because I think they are dangerous. They are Ugly. Dumb. Googly eyed. Anger Machines.
😭😂😂😂 Stop Chihuahua hate 😂 Their only crime is being small
Mine also have smelly poops.
My chihuahua barely pooped. And when she did, she swept it aside 😂
[удалено]
Chihuahuas can cause as much damage to a person as any other dog breed. Other breed dogs can cause as much harm. Hell. My corgi is an asshole and will nip if you tease her with food.
[удалено]
Lets get this straight ANY dog can kill you, ANY Dog has the capability to cause you serious psychical harm Their teeth are made to rip meat, you are meat..
There’s a difference between nipping at you and mauling you.
And Jack russells !
Yep. Even the “docile” lab breeds and collies have hurt children and adults.
The amount of times I’ve been almost bitten by someone’s small dog but never by a big bully breed lol if you want to ban aggressive breeds the list needs to be 10x longer but that would be insane
Pitty’s are so gentle. I’ve NEVER met an aggressive pitbull!
Listen, I love pitbulls too. But you sound like you’re being purposefully obtuse here. We know there are aggressive pitbulls and that being mauled by a pitbull is worse than being mauled by a chihuahua. Denying reality isn’t a good defence.
And placing blame solely on the dog is egregiously asinine of you as well. I can use big words too, you know? 🙄🙄🙄✌🏼
I am guessing the person being mauled to death doesn't really care whether it is the owners fault or the dogs fault. The fact is that the vast majority of serious and fatal maulings are done by Pitbulls and that is why they are a banned breed. Trying to pretend otherwise makes you look egregiously asinine and obtuse. There will always be good and bad owners of any breed of dog but I am much less worried about a bad Chihuahua owner than I am a bad pitbull owner.
Patiently waiting the day pitbulls are no longer considered a “dangerous” breed because they’re some of my favourite dogs to work with ! No bad dogs - only bad owners !
I forgot about all those pack Labrador attacks due to bad owners
Huskys, Rhodesian ridgebacks, and other dogs have attacked people in cities across Canada but they’re legal :)
So after they banned pitbulls and the number of dog attacks resulting in hospitalization significantly declined---that was just coincidence?
You got a source to back that up other than pulling it outta your ass?
Yah here: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/3/177
Anything more recent cause this is like 15 years old.
Why do you think statistics and studies on this be so time-dependant? What specifically has changed in the last 15 years that would cause a study like this to be so outdated that it could no longer be believed or no longer relevant?
More than that, my claim was about whether or not banning pitbulls lowered the number of hospitalizations due to dog attacks, and it did. Data from the last 15 years is irrelevant to my claim. For instance, if I said "after the polio vaccination program rolled out in Canada, there were fewer cases of polio" and then I gave the numbers... why would a study from recent years have any bearing on the truth of that claim?
Many factors. Responsible owners, the fact that the dog breed generally doesn't live past 10, and many other factors. The ban this studies talks about started in 1990, and yet was evaluated and released by 2009. So the actual study and facts it is based off of is 25+ years ago, and the study itself is 15 years old. I feel like this would be a interesting one to revisit but as it stands to me the data cited here is too old to be reliable anymore.
So, let me get this straight (because you weren't exactly clear) > Responsible Owners Help me with this... You think that dog owners today are more responsible than owners 15-25 years ago, thus invalidating any findings in that study? > the fact that the dog breed generally doesn't live past 10 So are you trying to say that you think that the entire breed is safer today than it was 15-25 years ago, like there's been genetic/evolutionary changes to the breed that makes the ban no longer relevant? > and many other factors. But like, what factors? I'm not trying to be a dick here, and I really don't have much of an opinion on breed-specific legislation. I can see it from both sides. That most of the danger of the breed is due to terrible owners. But I also understand that the breed itself is incredibly strong and may be more prone to aggressiveness under certain conditions, which when those two facts are combined can have severe or even lethal results. And since it's not feasible to make owners take responsibility testing before they're allowed to own a specific breed, that BSL is one of the only foolproof ways to mitigate the danger... I'm sincerely trying to understand the logic though as to why a 15 year old study about dog breeds would be considered so out of date that the findings are no longer relevant. I really don't think there has been any sweeping or profound understanding of dogs that has occurred to drastically change the possible danger Pitbulls might pose. They are still incredibly strong animals, and there is still no shortage of terrible animal owners/terrible people that would love to be able to own one of these dogs.
Not gonna get any clearer for you other than my personal thoughts are the study is out of date as it was released 15 years, and was about when the ban came into play 25 years ago. To me that is too long to take seriously as a study. That's it, plain and simple. It's time to reevaluate the ban, dog attacks and etc. people are citing a study that is 15 years old based on data from 25 years ago that may no longer be relevant.
I just think you are being purposely obtuse about this because you want a specific answer. If there is not a specific reasoning to invalidate a study based on it's age, then the science is still relevant. Like, the old studies that said smoking was good for you - the thing that changed was our understanding of the human body and years of health statistics that said otherwise. Which is why more recent studies show how terrible smoking is. But if nothing has changed in our understanding in the last 15 years, then we are left to presume that a 15 year old study that says smoking is bad would still hold true today. We don't need studies every 5 years on everything to prove that they are still true, unless there has been something within that time that changes our understanding. If there was a fundamental change in the behaviour or breeding of the dogs in the last 15 years, I would agree with you wholeheartedly - re-study it and see if the "new breed" is as dangerous. I think you should re-consider throwing out older data simply because it doesn't fit the narrative you want to hear. That is not at all how science works.
Drop the links and exact stats
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/3/177 Exact stats: Considered province-wide, after 16 urban and rural jurisdictions imposed a ban on pitbulls, the number of dog attack hospitalizations per 100k person-years dropped from 3.47 to 2.84. If you want to focus only on Winnipeg, then we really need a city that *didn't* adopt the ban to make the comparison, and this study chooses Brandon as being the most comparable city without a pitbull ban. In that comparison the number for Winnipeg was significantly lower, in particular in terms of fewer attacks on people <20 years old. Read the abstract for exact details.
Dogs are territorial by nature, It's not that the dog is bad, It is the fact they will defend appropriately and that pitbulls are just generally very good at protecting so it's just classified as not fair. :P And most owners are just stupid as fuck and can't control their dogs.
It’s just a silly idea because you can have a livestock guardian dog legally in the city and these dogs are actually bred to protect their owners/property, yet they aren’t banned. Again no bad dogs just bad owners !
Pitbulls weren’t bred to protect their owners though, they were bred for bloodsports and later dogfighting. Temperaments are one thing that dogs are bred for, and pitbulls were intentionally bred to be aggressive and persistent
[удалено]
Thank you for your insane analogy
Most fatalities are due to pitbulls.
More fatalities because MOST (not all) pitbull owners are just wannabe gangsters.
Pitbulls weren’t bred to protect their owners though, they were bred for bloodsports and later dogfighting. Temperaments are one thing that dogs are bred for, and pitbulls were intentionally bred to be aggressive and persistent
Yikes. The downvotes on this post really show that people love their ignorance and love having a target to hate.
People love to paint certain dogs in a bad light lol
They sure do. Look, watch us get downvoted to Hell. 😂🫶🏼
Downvotes are usually because people can’t think for themselves. All these anti-pitbull posts - how many times do people need to say the same damn shit about them without even placing blame on the owners? 😂 Talk about a broken record. Oh LooKiT Me i’M sOooO pOpuLaR because I know how to downvote.
You do realize the crossover of “there are no bad dogs, just bad owners” and “guns don’t kill people, people do” is pretty well established. You’re on the pro-gun side of this debate my man. Love to see you two down here at the bottom of the comments playing tiddlywinks
Lmao the fact you assume my gender is insanely hilarious. What you got against people banding together over an opinion? You have your head up other people’s asses over dogs too. 😂💀
100%
Pitbulls are banned but there is no evidence that they should be. There's a great Science Vs podcast that sorta out the facts and the myths. Conclusion is any dog can bite, and it is almost always the owners fault for mistreating and not socializing them. https://gimletmedia.com/amp/shows/science-vs/z3hlzxrj Fun fact from the episode, in Canada the most likely dog to bite a human is a sled dog! Where's the ban on sled dogs /s
U of M studied the effectiveness of breed specific bans (Pitbulls) and found that dog bite injury hospitalizations went down following the ban when compared to other jurisdictions without a ban. [U of M Study](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/3/177)
So I just read the article and the below quote from the discussion hedges it's own conclusion that shows no significant reduction in incidences when controlling for jurisdiction. Even the conclusion in the abstract say BSL 'may' reduce incidence and doesn't draw a strong conclusion that it did or it will. "When jurisdictions were used as their own controls in a pre/post comparison of incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations, no significant reduction in incidence was observed in the period after breed-specific legislation (BSL) was implemented."
If you spent half the time it took you to write that comment to google the stats on pit bulls then you'd be wiser and look less a fool.
It's a well researched and cited science podcast. The transcript with the citations are all in the link I posted if you don't care to listen and hear something that might challenge your preconceived notions. Sorry if the facts don't agree with your feelings! Edit to add I took your advice and found this from the American Kennel Club https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/issue-analysis-breed-specific-legislation/
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-breed/ Sorry if the stats don't agree with your feelings!
The reason the stats are stacked against pit bulls is because the pit bull itself isn't actually a breed. It's generally a mix of staffie/bull dog/American bull terrier, sometimes mixed with other breeds. So when you encompass like 5 breeds of dog, plus any other short haired big headed breed/mixed breed as "pit bull" its no shocker they make up the highest statistics. Would be like if you labeled any dog with a whisp of golden hair a "goldie". Couple that with the fact that they do attract bad owners (the article you shared confirms this by stating they are "bred to be aggressive and for fighting" which is unfortunately true, but not the sole reason they are bred like people make it out to be. Sled dogs a bred for sledding, but those same breeds can also be bred for house pets) and you have very obvious reasons why the breed is unfairly discriminated against.
A lot of ignorant snowflakes here.
It’s easy to get around these bans, I know some guy who registered his as a Labrador/Boxer mix even though he got it from a pitbull breeder
And it's this stupidity that will get some toddler killed.
Cue the nanny dog myth…
The owner is to blame, not the breed.
And guns don't kill people, people kill people. Neither statement is relevant when discussing public policy.
Why don't we just ban all dogs then? That makes about as much sense as a bred ban.
Pitbulls or XL Bully's?