So a couple of weekends ago, it was nice enough out that I was able to take my motorbike out for a ride.  Right now, it's -39 with the windchill.  Retarded.

 

I can't wait for spring.

So we got about 4" of snow yesterday.  We're currently at -14c.  Winter has arrived.  Apparently we're close to half the required ice thickness on the canal to be able to go skating.  I'm excited!!

I'm leaving the tilde in to emphasize just how Wacky the weather has become!

 

It's been over 10c a few times already in January, and right now it's -11.  Friday, it will be +6.  Saturday it will be -8.

 

I'm seriously wondering if we'll be able to skate on the canal this year because it might not freeze... Wild.

 

 

So I heard the new Guns N Roses song on the radio on the way into work this morning.

 

I can describe my feelings on this song with the following words:

 

I would enjoy forcibly inserting sharp metallic objects into my eardrums to block out this trash.

So it's been a week since I got my labret. I was so nervous when I went to get it done, I can't put into words just how terrified and apprehensive I was about the whole thing. I have a strong fear of needles, and the idea of a needle going through my body was incredibly terrifying. I've always liked the look of piercings, and I've pictured myself with a few piercings for years and years, but never had the guts to go through with it. So it took some strong incentive (from my girlfriend - a promise to give up smoking) for me to actually go ahead and get a piercing. So there I was, in a piercing shop, sitting on the table where it's about to happen, and I've got a clamp on my lip. The piercer tells me to relax, and next thing I know, I'm feeling a sharp prick on the inside of my lip. I was very much expecting a horrible burning stinging sensation to quickly develop, but there was nothing. The stud was pulled through my lip and I was done. I stood up and it was over. I felt no pain in my lip, but I was very aware that there was a foreign object in my mouth... over the next hour, I couldn't get over that I'd actually done it. I began to feel a bit of soreness that night, and it wasn't too bad. The next day was pretty easy as well, but I had to stay up all night for a shift at work, and it was nearly unbearable as I went to go to sleep at 7am.. I nearly had to take it out, but I eventually passed out from being up for so long. It's gotten much better since then, and I don't even really notice it any discomfort anymore. I'm even thinking of getting my ear lobes done with 10 gauge captive bead rings now...

I don't know how else to put it.  I tried a bottle of Coca Cola Blak, and I couldn't even get past two sips.  Bar none, this is the most disgusting soft drink I've ever tasted.

 

 

This is ridiculous.  I have pasted the contents of this thread below.

 

moderator

7/10/2006 12:11:49
 Topic: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

Dianne Singer has written a rebuttal to Peter Worthington's column denouncing pit bulls. In it she demands owners take responsibility for their pets, regardless of breed. So, then, is it the breed that is inherently vicious or the environment the owners create in which to raise the pet?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

David_Leslie

7/10/2006 12:37:20
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

It is the environment the owners create in which to raise the pet that makes them dangerous.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

uplink

7/10/2006 14:02:10
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

I think that the problem is the owners as well.
Unfortunately the majority of the people who own these dogs are attracted to the characteristics that can make them dangerous, and like the intimidation factor that goes along with having these dogs.
A breed ban will not prevent people from going and getting another large intimidating dog and raising them the same way. I suppose then someone will eventually want to ban Rottweilers/German Shepherds/Dobermans etc...

On the other hand, as pit bulls were actually bred with a mind to maintaining their agressive tendancies, unless there's a way to prevent the idiots that view them as weapons from owning them, I won't complain much about the breed ban.

As the father of 2 youngsters, I'd really rather not have to worry about this type of dog being around my children.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellwood_P_Dowd

7/10/2006 15:54:00
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

I remember a show about a young man from Regent Park in Toronto who grew up with 2 Pit Bulls as Guardians. Wonderful daddy would set the dogs loose at night in the apartment to keep the kids in thier rooms while he and mom went drinking or drugging or whatever. He was able to get around the dogs and get out himself. He grew up to become a trainer, specializing in dangerous behaviour in dogs. He became very successful, owning a large piece of property in the Muskoka's. Anyway, the point of my post is that the only time any of his employees or himself were ever bitten, it wasn't a Pit Bull or Rotti that did it, it was an Australian Shepherd. He took the end of the little finger off an employee.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

casper34

7/10/2006 16:05:02
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

I don't know why anyone would want to own large dangerous breed but I don't bans of any kind work. I still think that insuring is the way to control it. Premiums based on statistics on amount of severity of attacks and whatever other risk factors are relevant.

The issue has similarities to gun control. It is not only the weapon that is the problem but also the owner. Mandatory safety training for gun users did a great job of dropping "accidents". Maybe owners of large dogs should have to take a course in animal training. Breeders (like gun PAL's) should have to have further checks and training.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

mtinyfeet

7/10/2006 17:27:44
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

I believe strongly that it is the environment that the dog lives in. There are alot of bad dogs out there because of the environment that they live in and they are not pitbulls. I own one, and love her to the fullest. Alot of young people are owning these dogs not just for a family pet, but for a status of owning one. Pitbulls love to be praised and to please the owner, so if the owner asks of them to do wrong they will do it, in hopes to please the owner. Me and my family as pitbull owners treat all dogs the exact same, whether it is a poodle, lab, pitbull, they ALL need to be watched, people fail to forget that a dog is a dog, no matter what breed it is.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

uplink

7/10/2006 17:59:20
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

mtinyfeet:
I feel for you and the label being hung on these dogs. It's unfortunate that the thugs who own these dogs seem to have blown it for everyone.

Again.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

court22

7/10/2006 19:14:05
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

I'm a 'mom' of a 3 year old Staffordshire Terrier aka a pitbull. He's the most loving, loyal, smart and goofy dog ever and I'm not just saying that cause he's mine! These dogs can make wonderful companions IF trained properly and raised with love, affection and discipline. It disgusts me to see people train these dogs to be aggresive as they can be so loving when put into the right environment. People need to get over their fears of these dogs - I've actually had a Jack Russell attack my dog. Did my dog retaliate? No - he turned his head. Please don't believe everything you hear about these wonderful dogs. They have so much to offer.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

jester1972

7/10/2006 19:29:42
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

The problem is with the owners.
Dogs are bred for certain characteristics. These dispositions are natural to the dog. You cannot fault an animal for being an animal. That is following natural instincts.
Where the problem occurs is when dogs are trained improperly, not trained at all, and sometimes it is the victims fault. But as an owner, you should know how to warn people of interaction with a dog that might perceive it as agressive. For some dogs, it might be hand gestures raised over the shoulder. Not good if you're in a park with your kid flying a kite.
People are ignorant and lazy. They don't take the time to learn everything there is to know about a new pet. That goes for everything in life though.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Angush

7/10/2006 20:12:10
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

      <This post was updated by Angush. 7/10/2006 20:14:41>

      <This post was updated by Angush. 7/10/2006 20:18:37>

Peter Worthington is correct.

Many people can say what they want but when you have been attacted by a Pit Bull you never for get it.

My family lives with this attact daily.

All dogs can bite but trust me when I tell you when a Pit gets you ,you better pray.

If you have not been attacted by a Pit Bull you do not know what you are talking about.

This pit is still around the owner never said a thing ,but he sure ran away quickly.

Ban the breeed, if not I want a shark in my pool.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RZ50085

7/10/2006 23:22:53
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

Angush
I feel the same about Dobermans, that's what attacked our child.
But I also believe thet Breed Specific Legistration will not remedy the problem.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 09:28:40
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

I have a pitty/lab mix. He is a wonderful dog, with great temperament. I have grown up with dogs, and I definitely know dog behaviour. I do not have any hesitation introducing him to new people and other dogs, and they are usually very receptive to his affection. When introducing him to new people, I usually let them play with him/get kisses from him for about 5 minutes, then I tell them he is a mix. More often than not, I hear people say "Oh.. really" and they will back off. They will step back from this dog as if it had suddenly turned vicious on them, but he's still just standing there wagging his tail, wanting to play. Nothing has changed apart from their perception formed from preconceived notions about this breed. I know they have an internal struggle going on. They have just seen first hand how playful and affectionate this dog is and this totally contradicts any horror stories the media has told about this breed. A story about how tens of thousands of these dogs live their whole lives without so much as a nip to anyone wouldn't sell as much as a story of a singular dog attack. It's very easy to neglect crucial details in stories of these dog attacks too such as location or provocation to sensationalize the story.

 

If a dog is by nature a territorial animal (remember, all dogs have wolf ancestry) then it will defend its territory if it feels threatened. A rogue dog straying into someone else's yard/territory may find itself quite unwelcome if there is another dog that has already staked its claim to this territory. Have you ever walked your dog and heard a yappy little dog madly barking at you from behind a fence? Some might excuse this behaviour as the dog is small and "cute". Some may find it annoying, but bottom line, this is a dog aggressively attempting to defend its territory. Trouble is, when you haven't trained or socialized your large dog properly, there is always the possibility of injury to another animal. More often than not, this is why attacks occur. The dog feels their territory is being threatened by an intruder/other animal, and it takes action. Following through on this unfettered instinct is never the dog's fault, it is always the owner's carelessness with regards to containing the dog in a fenced in property, let alone providing proper training and socializaion for the animal. Moral of the story is don't get a dog if you don't understand their behaviour and correct it accordingly. An untrained small dog may end up a yappy little annoyance but an untrained large dog can be a huge liability, regardless of the breed.

 

I read something recently in a local newspaper that absolutely disgusted me. "Neighbours have given unconfirmed reports that they believe the Pit Bull may have an attacked another dog at some point but no one has come forward with an injured dog." They then go on. "Injuries to the other dog may have been a fractured foot. City counsellors have planned an emergency meeting to discuss how to better enforce legislation against this breed."

 

There is no confirmation of an attack. There are no details as to the incident other than conjecture from neighbours. Even better, the owner of the dog has 5 Pit Bulls living in the same house, and lets them run at large on his unfenced property in suburbia. This information was only mentioned at the end of the story after all the sensational details of the supposed attack were published. The victim dog was listed as a 10 month old Australian Shepherd, but this has not been confirmed. Apparently, there are so many 10 month old Australian Shepherds in this neighbourhood that they weren't able to find the owners of the one that was injured and have them confirm the injury, but they did know that it was 10 months old at the time of the attack, and it was an Australian Shepherd. Do you think that if the dreaded Pit Bull was really out to attack this relatively helpless 10 month old puppy, it would have left it with simply a fractured foot? So many details of this story don't add up, but the outcome is that we have some overzealous city counsellors planning a meeting on what to do with this dangerous breed. Maybe they should require the owner to build a fence on his property to contain the animals, and put two of them up for adoption so he doesn't have more than the 3 dogs per property allowed by city regulations. Maybe they should also force him to take his dogs to training school so they won't be a liability to him, and he won't be a liability to us for being such a dumbass.

 

Bottom line, any large dog is capable of causing injury and it's up to the owners to take responsibility.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 09:47:35
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

Angush

"Ban the breeed, if not I want a shark in my pool."

Poor spelling and grammar aside, who in their right mind compares raising a Pit Bull in their house to keeping a shark in their pool?

Each year, world-wide, between 50 and 100 shark attacks are reported. There are over 6 billion people on the planet, and hundreds of millions of these people venture into the ocean without incident. Over 43,200 motor vehicle fatalities occurred in the United States last year alone. Maybe you should worry about all those cars on the road instead of my dog.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 09:51:40
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

to uplink:

"As the father of 2 youngsters, I'd really rather not have to worry about this type of dog being around my children."

I'd hope that you don't have to worry about an untrained dog being around your children too. Did you know that Pit Bulls were specifically bred based on their temperament? I bet you did. Did you know that part of those "desirable" traits was an absolute trust of humans? Why? So the owner of the dog could pull the dog out of a fight without any fear of being attacked by either dog.

Read this.

Your children are definitely safe from this breed. Leave my dog alone.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

casper34

7/11/2006 10:01:54
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

Yes all improperly socialized dogs can bite. The difference is the amount of damage that can be done. Comparing a small dog attack to a large dog attack is like comparing getting hit with a slingshot or a shotgun.

Large dog owners need to realize this and have proper handling techniques, as you seem to. I think that it should be manadatory to register/insure all dogs and receive safety training for large dogs.

From reading I see that another problem is breeders. The so called puppy mills. This indiscriminate breeding is also a factor. They are not destroying dogs with anti social behaviour or actually encouraging this trait. That is why I think breeders should have to be screened as well.

These types of dogs have the potential to be to dangerous to not have any controls.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 10:03:39
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

casper34

Insurance is not the answer - look at the automotive rates in Ontario, they are astronomical. I've been driving for 9 years without incident and I pay out the nose for a mandatory "protection" service. What are insurance policies going to do to for the unfortunate victim who lost a finger because they stuck it in an territorial animal's face? It certainly won't get them their finger back, but will help to line the pockets of the insurance companies. Right idea to make the owner responsible somehow though. Training is certainly a great suggestion. It should be mandatory to show competence before being issued a dog license. I remember that I had to go through a half hour screening process one on one to even meet my dog at the Humane Society, let alone adopt him. This should be necessary as part of the process of obtaining a dog license. I am thankful the Humane Society cares enough to implement this policy voluntarily.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Angush

7/11/2006 10:06:45
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

      <This post was updated by Angush. 7/11/2006 10:14:34>

dave ww and all

Always something else. I find in my day to day work, that people that supported the Pit bull are indeed the ones with the propblems.

example:Rude and always want to criticize other people ,other breeds and peoples spelling and grammer.

Grow up and stick with the Pit Bull matter at hand.

Peter Worthington is correct ,like it or not.

Angus and the dogs

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

casper34

7/11/2006 10:15:13
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

I here what you are saying but I think insurance would do two things.

First, it enhances the concept of personal responsibility. At least financially.

Secondly, it would be easier for victims to get needed services after an attack like counselling or cosmetic surgery.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

rosemarie59

7/11/2006 10:17:19
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

just get a cat.
end of story.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

tweetypie

7/11/2006 10:19:20
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

As I wrote in an earlier post, the Windsor Ontario bylaw banning Pitbulls and other dangerous breeds, grandfathered the existing dogs but made the owner acquire a 1 million dollar liability insurance policy in order to retain ownership. Many owners were turning their dogs in.

GOOD!!!!!

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

meshman

7/11/2006 10:22:36
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"Your children are definitely safe from this breed."

"The dogs jumped the fence and attacked a two-year-old boy and his father as they walked through a park on Feb. 24. One pit bull clamped down on the boy's head before the man and his neighbour managed to beat the animals away. The adults were badly bitten."

"Three pit bulls have been seized and their owner charged after the dogs attacked a two-year-old and his father in Ottawa – five weeks after the same animals bit another boy."

There's lots more...

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

meshman

7/11/2006 10:24:57
 Topic: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

Oops, same story :) Stupid CBC. Point being, many news articles will confirm that these dogs are not blanketly safe for children.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

tweetypie

7/11/2006 10:25:06
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"just get a cat.
end of story."

Cats should be treated the same as dogs. They should be licenced and kept on a leash.

They are an animal not native to Canada and not only kill many of our native birds and small animals but, destroy costly gardens and shrubs.
I am in the process of a court small claims lawsuit against my neighbours two cats that roam freely peeing all over everything in site, destroying costly garden plants. I encourage everyone who is fed up with cats to do the same SUE the owners.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 10:28:00
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"rosemarie59

just get a cat."

Had one before I got my dog. My pitty mix and my cat get along fine. Should I have been unable to get a dog because some people consider it unsafe?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 10:31:29
 RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"tweetypie

"Cats should be treated the same as dogs. They should be licenced and kept on a leash.""

I think people are very misguided when they let their cats roam around freely outside. My cat is an exclusively indoor cat, and he will periodically meow to try to get me to let him outside. I don't want him getting hit by a car or tearing a neighbour's garden apart. I love my kitty far too much to let his curiosity get the best of him outside.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 10:37:19
 RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"meshman

"Oops, same story :) Stupid CBC. Point being, many news articles will confirm that these dogs are not blanketly safe for children.""

No dog is absolutely safe for children, I'll restate that the only dog that ever bit me was a Bischon Frise and that was because it wasn't socialized properly. No dog should ever be left unsupervised with children.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 10:46:39
 RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"meshman

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/25/pit-bull-050225.html"

I just read this story, and decided to do a bit of background research. I did a 411 lookup on G Cleroux in Kanata, Ontario. He lives on Sheldrake Avenue. The Kanata newspaper that published the recent story about pit bull attacks mentioned that the owner with 5 dogs lived in the Glen Cairn area, around Sheldrake avenue no less. Sounds like we have one real idiot that shouldn't be allowed to keep his dogs. It's a shame people like this give the media fodder to label an entire breed as a menace when it's just a few bad apples out there that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

rosemarie59

7/11/2006 10:55:23
 RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"Should I have been unable to get a dog because some people consider it unsafe?"

dave,
you should be free to have as many pit bulls or whatever as you like.
as for you, tweety BIRD:
as with anything there are pros and cons. haven't you learned that yet? the good thing about cats outside is they keep the rodent population within present limits. which is better than unlimited. if you like birds, go on a nature hike. most of what you see now are just cow birds ..

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 10:59:14
 RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

It warms my heart to see that there are at least some sensible people on this forum, such as rosemarie59.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

JudgeKing

7/11/2006 12:45:46
 RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

It sounds like a lot of pit bull owners are as unstable as their dogs. The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.
The law allows you to keep your dog, why do you care if the breed is prevented from procreating? This way, this problem won't exist in 15 years or so. There are hundreds of other breeds, and humans 'made' them all; this one was a mistake that is being corrected.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

uplink

7/11/2006 12:52:02
 RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child."

Nothing much to say that can beat that...

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

dave_w_w

7/11/2006 15:14:23
 RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"JudgeKing

"It sounds like a lot of pit bull owners are as unstable as their dogs. The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.
The law allows you to keep your dog, why do you care if the breed is prevented from procreating? This way, this problem won't exist in 15 years or so. There are hundreds of other breeds, and humans 'made' them all; this one was a mistake that is being corrected.""

 

While I agree that human life trumps animal life, I don't think that it's a black and white situation like you paint. I tend to disagree with you there. I don't think for one second that this breed should be eliminated. Why? It won't solve the problem of irresponsible owners. What about Akitas? They have maimed people. What about Dobermans? They have maimed people. What about Rottweilers? They have maimed people. What about German Shepherds? They have maimed people. What about Australian Shepherds? They have maimed people. What about Poodles? They have maimed people. Does this mean as a pit bull mix owner, I'm somehow "unstable" for making such observations and conclusions? Am I "unstable" because I find this whole situation ridiculous? Is it "unstable" for me to try and understand the perspective of pro-BSL supporters? I'm trying to understand your perspective, and have you show me why you feel this is effective, but no one is saying anything that makes sense with all factors considered. How can you judge me (or any other pit bull owner) as "unstable" without knowing the first thing about me? Probably by using the same twisted logic that led you to conclude that destroying an entire breed of dog is a reasonable or effective solution to a misunderstood problem.

 

Why do I care that the breed of dog that I've got isn't "allowed" to reproduce legally? To be fair - I don't think most people should ever have unsterilized pets. I would never own an unsterilized pet or recommend it anyone that isn't out to breed their animals responsibly. Biters are 6.2 times as likely to be male than female, and 2.6 times as likely to be intact than neutered. Should we ban owning male dogs? Breeders should be the only people with unsterilized animals. I find that BSL is comparable to ethnic cleansing, but done mostly by sterilization.

 

If you don't understand how us owners feel, think of this... it will require you to suspend your prejudice for a few moments. Say your dog is a lab (or substitute your favourite breed here). A lab down the street bites a child that was poking at it's eyes through a fence. The media publishes a front page story about the KILLER LAB that viciously maimed the unsupervised perfect angel child. People from all over the street give you the evil eye everytime they see you with your dog. Your dog must be muzzled off-property. People do not want to socialize their dogs with yours. Your dog has never done any harm to anyone, or any other dog, and probably never will. Once all existing labs have died, you will never be able to own a lab again, unless you move somewhere without BSL. You probably can't picture that because of your prejudice that most labs are nice.

A little while ago, in France, a woman that had her face torn off by her dog. The dog that did this is a Labrador retriever. This is not an example of desirable behaviour by labs. My dog is half pitty and half lab. Watch out, he will lick you to death.

 

Many of these dogs surrendered to local shelters for the right reasons (moving out of country, unable to care for the animal, etc, etc) will simply be put down because they have been labeled - quite possibly unfairly - as a danger to people. Some dogs definitely have temperament issues and should be put down. Just not 99% of them. Responsible breeders never allow undesirable genes/traits to carry on. Being agressive towards humans is not part of the description of a Staffordshire terrier. Don't believe me? Check it out. Look for STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER.

 

 

Here is a description of what they do.

 

 

Here's something to ponder... would an irresponsible owner ever subject their dog to a temperament test? JudgeKing, we should hope that most pit bull owners are as stable as their dogs. They are above average in terms of stability.

 

The breed has been demonized due to a few bad apples. I still can't get over the way people change the way they approach my pet when they learn that he is part pitty. That's the issue - it's knee jerk legislation and fear mongering. Are we in such need of babysitting that legislation trumps personal responsibility? If the breed is banned in Ontario, that won't stop people in other provinces, or other countries from breeding these dogs.

JudgeKing - have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

 

"uplink

"The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.

Nothing much to say that can beat that...""

Faulty logic. Thinking that your child's safety is increased around dogs when BSL is introduced is just silly. I'll ask the same questions of you as I did JudgeKing. Have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

 

I also found an interesting quote at:

 

“Just as we wouldn’t let a great white shark in a swimming pool,” the province’s attorney general, Michael Bryant, had said, “maybe we shouldn’t have these animals on the civilized streets.”

Angush, is this where you got your wisdom of comparing raising a pit bull to putting a shark in your swimming pool?

 

Angush, I ask the same questions of you. Have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

I really want people to reply to these questions.

 

I would hope BSL supporters have done enough reasearch and have enough experience with dangerous breeds to know what they are supporting a ban on. Let's play spot the pit bull.

 

Here is a section from a very well written piece at the new yorker. Makes me mad that I couldn't take care of the idiot owner that started this whole fiasco.

 

"“A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog,” Lockwood went on. “It is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation. I’ve been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it’s my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You’ve got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn’t know where her child is. It’s not old Shep sleeping by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other warning signs.”

 

Jayden Clairoux was attacked by Jada, a pit-bull terrier, and her two pit-bull–bullmastiff puppies, Agua and Akasha. The dogs were owned by a twenty-one-year-old man named Shridev Café, who worked in construction and did odd jobs. Five weeks before the Clairoux attack, Café’s three dogs got loose and attacked a sixteen-year-old boy and his four-year-old half brother while they were ice skating. The boys beat back the animals with a snow shovel and escaped into a neighbor’s house. Café was fined, and he moved the dogs to his seventeen-year-old girlfriend’s house. This was not the first time that he ran into trouble last year; a few months later, he was charged with domestic assault, and, in another incident, involving a street brawl, with aggravated assault. “Shridev has personal issues,” Cheryl Smith, a canine-behavior specialist who consulted on the case, says. “He’s certainly not a very mature person.” Agua and Akasha were now about seven months old. The court order in the wake of the first attack required that they be muzzled when they were outside the home and kept in an enclosed yard. But Café did not muzzle them, because, he said later, he couldn’t afford muzzles, and apparently no one from the city ever came by to force him to comply. A few times, he talked about taking his dogs to obedience classes, but never did. The subject of neutering them also came up—particularly Agua, the male—but neutering cost a hundred dollars, which he evidently thought was too much money, and when the city temporarily confiscated his animals after the first attack it did not neuter them, either, because Ottawa does not have a policy of preëmptively neutering dogs that bite people.

 

On the day of the second attack, according to some accounts, a visitor came by the house of Café’s girlfriend, and the dogs got wound up. They were put outside, where the snowbanks were high enough so that the back-yard fence could be readily jumped. Jayden Clairoux stopped and stared at the dogs, saying, “Puppies, puppies.” His mother called out to his father. His father came running, which is the kind of thing that will rile up an aggressive dog. The dogs jumped the fence, and Agua took Jayden’s head in his mouth and started to shake. It was a textbook dog-biting case: unneutered, ill-trained, charged-up dogs, with a history of aggression and an irresponsible owner, somehow get loose, and set upon a small child. The dogs had already passed through the animal bureaucracy of Ottawa, and the city could easily have prevented the second attack with the right kind of generalization—a generalization based not on breed but on the known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners. But that would have required someone to track down Shridev Café, and check to see whether he had bought muzzles, and someone to send the dogs to be neutered after the first attack, and an animal-control law that insured that those whose dogs attack small children forfeit their right to have a dog. It would have required, that is, a more exacting set of generalizations to be more exactingly applied. It’s always easier just to ban the breed."

This is a summary of a phone call I just took.

 

Customer:  "You reported this device went down a little while back... what is the current status?"

Me:   "Just tested.. it's now reachable, uptime is over a month, so it was an ISP issue."

Customer:  "So what does that mean?"

Me:  "The internet connection went down and now it's back up...   maybe the ISP had a routing issue.. hard to tell exactly but it's back up."

Customer:  "So I'll just put in my ticket that the service was restored... by power?"

Me:   "No, it was an ISP outage."

Customer:  "Hmmm... how does that work?"

09.29.05:  So I'm sick as a dog right now.  There seems to be a nasty cold going around the area.  It actually incapacitated my for the first couple of days this week, but I was feeling good enough to come in for my 6 am shift this morning.  It should be a fun pedal bike ride home, it's currently 8 celcius, gusts of wind up to 55km/h (blowing eastbound, I need to head west), light rain.  Good times.

 

So Future Shop caved in twice in a week on warranty issues that they had been real sticklers on.  My laptop and xbox have been replaced.  I got a new widescreen Toshiba.  I am quite happy about this, although it took weeks of battling with the customer service department in BC.  The warranty department recognized that 5 repairs had been done, but contested that two of the repairs were not major (you need 3 completed + need a 4th), and therefore I did not qualify for replacement under their policy.  In the end, the local store ended up absorbing the full cost of the replacement - they took ownership of an issue that wasn't technically theirs.  I am grateful to have received the replacement I'm entitled to, but still a bit put off that it took so long. 

Future Shop had also denied repairing my xbox as they classified the damage as "physical damage".  I definitely did not (intentionally or otherwise) physically damage the unit.  Since they were giving me excuses, I asked to have them show me the warranty policy that I signed that states they won't fix it under the conditions they stated.  I was told "we'll find it and call you".  About 9 months later, I followed up, to have found out that they threw my xbox out.  Not a good move considering they were going to "get back to me" about the warranty policy I signed.  Basically, because they screwed up and threw out my personal property, they replaced it, no further questions asked.  Wait long enough, and you might just get what you paid for at Future Shop.  Not if you aren't persistent, though!

 

09.23.05:  With all the recent fear about Oil production capacity being reduced by Hurricane Rita, and the existing damage from Hurricane Katrina, gas stations across the country (and the USA) have taken to gouging consumers.  What really irks me is that the price of oil is going up on the consumer level today, but the oil itself on the consumer market today was purchased far before the recent hurricane activity at a fixed price.  Why then, are consumers feeling the pinch now?  It is simply price gouging.

 

Last night was complete chaos at the pumps, all around town.  Actually, all around the country.  I passed by a lineup over a block long at the pumps around the corner.   On the way back home, I decided to stop for gas at the Canadian Tire in Bell's Corners.   There were about 5 people staffed to direct the line up through the parking lot towards the gas station.  The station had run out of Regular and Plus fuel, and they were forced to sell their Premium gas at regular prices.  While waiting in line, I overheard the staff discussing the situation and it was mentioned they were nearly out of Premium gas.  The price was 97.5.  I managed to get $20 worth of gas to top up my car.

 

Today, I have heard reports of stations charging upwards of $2 a litre for gasoline.  I will remind you that this gas was purchased at a fixed price months ago, and the price per barrel has barely changed since that time.  This is nothing short of criminal price fixing and I hope that the stations that have participated and encouraged such behaviour get what's coming to them.  People driving SUVs and trucks certainly have!

 

08.30.05:  The wonderful people from Future Shop have really been pissing me off lately.  My laptop has needed 4 major repairs in the 2 years that I've owned it, and should be now eligible for a full replacement under their extended warranty program.  The last repair that was necessary was a replacement of the power supply.  I wrote a registered letter to Future Shop on Merivale in Ottawa to ask for a replacement laptop, as they are contractually obligated to provide.  Nothing so much as an acknowledgement that they had received the letters and would get back to me.  To get their attention, I filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.  This way, I got a response, although not what I was hoping for.

 

In an attempt to avoid actually following their contract, their representative has told me that replacing the power supply is not considered a "major" repair as the power supply is an accessory.  Call me computer literate or competent, but you can't power a laptop computer or charge it's battery without your power supply.  How then can they claim that replacing a power supply is not a major repair?  How then can they claim that the power supply was an accessory when it was a fundamentally critical component that shipped with the laptop?  Here is the definition of the word "accessory":  an unnecessary or supplementary item.  I hardly think so, Future Shop. 

 

I would like to suggest to anyone that was ever considering setting foot inside one of their stores or shopping online from them to look elsewhere.  Better deals and customer service are to be had anywhere than this giant corporation trying to squeeze the little guy for as much cash as possible, then doing everything in their power to avoid actually following their contractual obligations.

Tonight, I met some wonderful dogs in the parking lot outside the restaurant I had just visited.

 

They caught my attention because they bore a striking resemblance to a breed of dog that has been banned in Ontario.  Breeding this banned dog is not permitted.  All dogs of this breed are legally required to be muzzled in public, and all animals must be fixed/neutered.  I approached the owner and asked permission to meet his dogs.  Lissa was interested too, and mentioned that they bore a striking resemblance to a pure bred pit bull.  The owner confirmed that both his dogs were pit bulls.  The dogs came up to the window and allowed us to pet them after smelling us.  They were very soft.  They were very gentle.  They were curious and affectionate.  Speaking with the owner, he mentioned that he had children and the dogs were very good with them.

 

 

I cannot understand how anyone can justify banning these animals.  The temperment is all in how the dog is brought up.  These dogs did not instill any fear in me, they were wonderful animals, and I wish I had more time to spend getting to know them.  It's always heartwarming to meet a friendly dog with their owner.  It is up to the owner to teach their pet how to behave, obey commands and to socialize them properly with other dogs and people.  It only takes a few incidents with untrained large dogs to be provoked and defend themselves or their territory to give a breed a bad name.  Examples are Pit Bulls, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers.  Any dog of this size is capable of a powerful bite.  Any of these dogs could take you down if they so willed.  Yet, any dogs I've met of these breeds have all had responsible owners that taught the dogs their place and how to interact with humans or other dogs.

 

You never hear of a miniature poodle biting someone because it isn't glamorous enough for the media to publicize.  The bite almost never kills the person because the dog is so small.  "Nippy" is a characteristic associated with small dogs.  So is "Yappy".  Yet this is tolerated due to the cute small size of the dog, when it is in fact aggressive and territorial behaviour.  If this happens with a dreaded "pit bull" the dog is labeled as a menace.  The dog is not considered "nippy" because a bite may result in more serious consequences than the flesh wounds from a lap dog.  Either way, the simple fact of the matter is the owner has not taken the time to train the dog properly.  Does this mean that we should ban large dogs because they are capable of inflicting more damage when provoked?  For that matter, should we ban driving a vehicle due to the risk of an accident?  I feel that most reasonable people would find this ban ridiculous if they experienced the affection from these animals as I did tonight. 

 

 

Knee jerk legislation is not the answer.  Perhaps an IQ test before being allowed to have a dog is.  Perhaps a test like getting a driver's license is an order.  What do you do if your dog growls and bares his teeth at a guest in your house?  A. Poke the your dog with a stick  B.  Euthanize your dog   C.  Ignore the behaviour and allow it to continue   D.  Call your MP and ask for legislation to ban your dog's breed    E.  Tell the dog NO, then reassure the dog that the guest is not a threat to in your/their territory and should be accepted into your pack.  Bring the dog over slowly to the guest, and if the dog is receptive, cautiously allow the dog to smell and meet the guest.  Usually at this point, the animal will warm up to the guest and quickly become a trusting friend.  However, if there is any other sign of further aggressive behaviour, tell the dog NO, and continue to reassure the animal that it is OK.  Make a decision to inform your guest to leave.  Take your dog to training school to reinforce that such behaviour is not tolerated.

I think you all know the answer to this one.  Hint:  It's not legislation.

I heard a few interesting stories tonight about people who drove motorbikes getting in accidents.

 

I can't help but shake my head when I hear stories about motorbike crashes.  In nearly every situation I've heard about or seen in a video, it was because someone was either inexperienced, or showing off.  There are a few exceptions with other drivers causing the accidents by disobeying right of way, or otherwise, but still, people can be idiots on bikes.

 

 

1st story:

 

Someone drives his bike up from the US on a trailer, and upon arrival at his friend’s, is asked repeatedly by his friend to borrow the bike to take it for a quick spin.  The guy refuses for a while, but is eventually coaxed into letting his friend take it out.  His friend gets on the bike, revs the engine then drops the clutch, and stalls the bike.  He does this a second time immediately after.  If at this point, there was any doubt that the bike was getting wrecked, well.. Let's just say the owner really should have been able to have forseen this happening.  The friend starts the bike for the third time, does the same thing, except this time, instead of stalling the bike, he wheelies the bike (a cruiser) straight into a ditch and slams into a culvert.

 

Moral of this story:

 

Don't lend your bike to someone that you haven't ridden with a few times before.  Don’t let someone drive off after they stall your bike twice in front of you.  Tell them it’s too hard on the clutch.

 

 

2nd story:

 

A guy is going through a mid life crisis and decides that since he rode a bike in his youth, he wants another one.  I can understand the desire to ride a motorcycle, and I don't blame the guy in the least for realizing his dream.  After years of no riding, he buys a brand new Suzuki GSX-R750.  This bike does 120km/h in first gear, and will get to 100km/h in less than 3 seconds.  This is definitely a bike for expert riders only, with years of riding experience.  I don't consider myself to be close an expert rider, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that this bike can do things that are far beyond my abilities.  It would be so easy to slide your rear tire out on this bike going around the corner if you gave it just the tiniest bit more throttle than was appropriate.  This bike needs to be respected because it will kill you if you don't give it the proper amount of respect.  Suffice to say, after years off with no riding, this is not the best bike to just hop on and relive the days of your youth.

 

Getting back to the story, the guy was driving around on very technical twisty roads up in the hills of Quebec.  He was going around a corner far too fast, and he veered off the road ever so slightly into the gravel strip beside the road.  He totalled his bike and broke his shoulder.  He had the bike for a total of 20 days.

 

Moral of this story:

 

Do not overestimate your ability with a bike after any time off.  I start the season off treating myself as a total newbie that has to relearn my abilities before I even begin to approach any sort of lean angle.  I get comfortable after a few weeks of riding, and clearly this guy felt the same way, but he had taken years off, and was riding one of the most extreme machines on the market in the most difficult (and dangerous) terrain out there.  Be careful out there.  If you want to scrape your knee against the ground, go to the track.  Public roads are not race tracks and you must expect that there is gravel or oil along the ground which will rob you of the traction necessary to lean your bike over that much.  Oh, and take a safety course before you start riding.  You don't get a Corvette as your learner car, do you?

 

 

3rd story:

 

A guy was going through a learner's course and grabbed the right side of the handlebar vertically while stationary.  The bike was running, and was in gear.  He found this to be uncomfortable, so he brought his arm back horizontally, which fully opened the throttle.  The sound of the engine startled him and he let go of the clutch lever, launching him at full throttle.  Having never experienced acceleration on a motorcycle, and not having the learned reflexes of operating the controls, he drove the bike straight into a wall. 

 

I find this particularly frustrating to hear about, because he was doing the right thing by taking a learner's course.  I don't believe the rider took enough care operating or learning the controls. I remember quite clearly being told to grip the handlebars horizontally so that if you go over a bump, your hand will not jerk back and open the throttle at all.  Unfortunately, this incident helped form his opinion that motorcycles are inherently dangerous and is of the opinion that 4 wheels are safer than 2 any day.  This is very frustrating to see this attitude get adopted after this accident.  I’ve been in 100% more car accidents than motorcycle accidents.   I certainly don't think that learning to drive a car should be taken any differently or approached with less caution that learning to drive a motorcycle.  If you aren't intimately familiar with the controls of either a car or a bike, you can hurt yourself.  Be very cautious when first attempting to use unfamiliar controls.  Take a learner's course and pay very close attention. 

 

 

4th story:

 

A buddy of mine enjoyed pulling wheelies on his bike due to the massive amount of power it generated.  He grew quite comfortable with his riding and decided to extend the distance of the wheelies as long as possible by shifting gears while the front end of his bike was in the air.  He was a very experienced rider, he had been to racing school at a track, and had/has great riding skills.  He kicked his shifter from 1st to 2nd while fully on the throttle and the bike reared straight up in the air.  He fell off from the bike at this point and slid along the ground.  He got up, got his bearings and saw his bike still traveling down the highway - with no rider.  He cringed as the bike lost all it's momentum and fell over, sliding down the highway at some speed on the parts that were never supposed to touch the ground.  He damaged his fairings, lost a mirror, damaged turn signals, scraped his engine case badly and bent a brake rotor.  Not to mention the bruises and scrapes from being ejected from his bike at 130km/h.

 

Moral of the story:

 

Don't do stunts with your bike.  If you want to do stunts on a bike, realize you are putting yourself and everyone around you in danger and take it to private property like a track or dragstrip.  Understand that you are going to damage your bike, and you will inevitably injure yourself at some point, probably sooner than later.  In short, don't do stunts with your bike.

 

 

5th story:

 

My dad bought a ninja 500, a great little starter bike and I went for a ride with him on a cool sunny day.  He had just finished meticulously cleaning his bike and had applied some wet tire grease to the side of the wheel, as he does with his cars to give them a clean look.  Turning from a stop sign a few blocks away from home, he low sided his bike at very slow speed because he had applied the grease to his tire.  His tires were also quite cold.  I fear that he may never fully trust his tires again after this incident.

 

Moral of the story:

 

Think about what you are doing to your bike when you are cleaning it, or replacing/installing parts.  Will this be a safe thing for the bike?  Why not?  Also, let your tires warm up fully before taking turns aggressively.

 

 

 

Everyone and their dog have a motorcycle crash story.  These people probably also have a car crash story too, but they don't mention that as soon as you get out from your car.  Why is that?  Why are insurance premiums on motorcycles so high?  When you get in an accident in a motorcycle, it is far more disastrous than in a car a lot of the time, either damaging the bike severely, and unfortunately, the rider more often than not gets hurt.  The rider is ejected from the bike and is subjected to sliding into whatever object in their path at whatever speed they were traveling at.  The bike will always fall to the ground, and parts that aren't supposed to ever make contact with the ground will get damaged/destroyed and will need to get replaced.  A piece of plastic that makes up your fairing is not able to withstand the force of 400+ lbs hitting the ground at high speed and will almost invariably need to be replaced.  Your gas tank will get dented.  You will lose mirrors and turn signals.  This is usually the best case scenario; it gets worse pretty quick from there.  It doesn't take much to total a bike.  Insurance companies never want to pay out a dime, and with the amount of inexperienced riders trashing their high performance bikes, or stunters getting in accidents, the rates are just astronomical. 

 

Knowing the consequences must be kept in the forefront of your mind when riding.  You must anticipate the unexpected.  Always look for an "out" in whatever traffic situation you encounter.  Expect that the parked car at the side of the road will pull out in front of you without looking at the last moment.  Never let yourself get in a situation where you are in great danger of getting in an accident.  Do not tailgate.  Do not let people tailgate you, let them pass.  I have applied the skills I've learned from riding a motorcycle to driving a car, and I feel that much more confident in my ability to avoid causing an accident.  I really wish more people would treat driving as an art that must be perfected and constantly refined to be done safely.  Taking the attitude that cars are safer leads to unsafe driving by carelessness.

 

Ride safe.

I saw something last night that really shook me up.

 

I was playing softball and someone hit a ball straight into a teammate's face.  That's pretty much the worst thing that could happen at a baseball game.  She was acting as a first base coach and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  It knocked her out for about 10 seconds.  When she came to, she had a gash in the side of her face and blood began pouring out.  She had a huge mark where the ball hit her which was already starting to change colour.  Her mouth was full of blood and her teeth were loose.  It was gruesome, to say the least.  She got up with some assistance and walked over to the bench.  She had no idea where she was or what had just happened other than she was in quite a lot of pain and blood was pouring from her face.  She was taken to the hospital and I've never seen something so horrifying that close.  I really hope she's OK and nothing serious will come of that accident.

Note to self.

 

Clutch safety switch should not be disconnected if you want to start your bike.

 

That said, I test drove an RC51 for kicks.  Needless to say, this is a ridiculous bike.  So fast.  Handles great.  Sounds great.  I want one.

 

It's game 4 of the first round playoffs and the Senators are up 4-2 in the second intermission.  Martin Havlat rocks.

 

I love hockey.  I love motorbikes. 

 

Need to play golf soon.

My bike remains dead.  I now have an appointment to get it fixed next week.  Let's hope it comes back to life before I have to take it to the shop.

I had to buy a new battery for my Motorbike today.  Last night after work, I went and got a bit of gas to top the tank up.  I went to start the bike at the station, but the battery just wouldn't give enough juice for the starter motor, even though it did just 20 minutes before.  I had to call Lissa over to the gas station to give me a boost.  That was embarassing and frustrating.  

 

I've already put a new set of tires on the bike, and spent a fair amount of cash getting a tune up and oil change done to start the season.  Between the parts and labour, we're at about $600 so far.  I will also need a new chain and some sprockets soon enough, so add another $200-300.  Hopefully this will be all that's required this season apart from another oil change.

 

So I installed my new battery this morning, and the bike fired up right away.  I had a couple of hours to kill before work so I decided to give my bike a thorough cleaning.  Surely enough, as I went to start my bike to go to work, the starter motor had ceased to function.  I get nothing when I push the starter button.  The lights are on, but nobody's home.  I took my fuel injection system apart, thinking it might have been my power commander fuel injection module, but the behaviour continued with the stock fuel injection system.  Electrical issues can be a real pain to diagnose, and even more of a pain to get your fingers into tight spots to disconnect and reconnect portions of the wiring harness.   So about half an hour to get a boost last night, an hour to get a new battery this morning, an hour and a half to wash the bike and another hour and a half trying to diagnose the issue.  I'm pretty sick of dealing with the bike, I wish it would just work right now.

 

I suspect some water may have gotten into an area that it shouldn't have and shorted something out.  All I know is that my bike hasn't started since I washed it.

 

My dad let me borrow his Ninja 500 to take to work.  I was a bit concerned about how it may have worked since he dropped it going around a corner on Sunday.  This was undoubtedly due to a combination of the coolness outside, new tires, and a fair amount of "slick wet look" spray on the tires.  The bike worked fine, it appears most of the damage was cosmetic.  I missed the power and feel of my bike, but the Ninja got me to work just in time to get thrown into a few fires so I could put them out.

 

Let's hope my bike starts when I get home... not that it will matter because rain is in the forecast for every day the next week.

I thought that you were hiding from me.

You thought that I had run away, chasing a trail of smoke and reason.

I have a new track I've been working on that I'm quite excited about.  I've been experimenting with new styles for my collaborations in Acoustic Data.  A big difference in this new material is the composition method.  In most previous tracks I've been completed, it's all been written and produced with a mouse.  It's quite exciting to be using live instruments to blend in with an electronic track, as well as recording actual keyboard performance rather than using a point and click composition method.  It's also a lot more technically challenging to produce great sounding instrument recordings versus simply dialing a patch in on your VST synth.  This is where composing with just a mouse and keyboard really shines.  It's much easier to come up with something that sounds reasonably polished in a short period of time.  It's also much less organic sounding.

 

Here is a sketch of my new track, Si.  I find it's a cross between a typical Acoustic Data track and something from Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient works 85-92 album with a dash of Hangable Auto Bulb thrown in for good measure.  Any feedback is appreciated.

 

I'm itching to get some new material formally released on CD as it's been over a couple of years since I've done that.  It will be difficult to make the distinction between which tracks will be published as Dent, and which tracks will end up being a collaboration under the Acoustic Data moniker.  My whole approach has changed so much that I don't know if I can write another track that sounds anything like my previous work.

 

Raiden wins.  Fatality.