http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/canadatorontoord.html
Now there's a good idea. Let's make it to where you cant have rabbits, cattle, goats, sheep, horses, donkeys, doves, swans, parrots, cockatoos, and turtles. THAT is what BSL opens up. They dont want you to even have horses! Come on!
Banned dogs:
Get ready for this one Bob-
TENNESSEE
Lynnville (has BANNED ROTTWEILERS, PIT BULLS, CHOWS, GERMAN SHEPHERD & DOBERMANS)
Hm....
In a study from 1992 to 1996 that involved 245 German cities, cross breeds caused the most bites (2376), followed by German shepherds (1956), Pit Bulls (320), Dobermans (223) and Bull terriers (169). K. Seksel, Report to the NSW Department of Local Government on Breed Specific Legislations Issues Relating To Control of Dangerous Dogs, 7-8 (2002).
This article that I am posting can be viewed at:
http://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/failedBSL.htm
The Failure of Breed-Specific Legislation
"For every complicated problem, there is a simple, and wrong, solution." - HL Mencken
It's easy to see why the average person might think that certain breeds of dogs are inherently dangerous. After all, those are the only breeds we see on the news when a serious dog attack occurs.
But things aren't always as they seem.
Governments that have passed breed-specific legislation (BSL) have found out the hard way that these kinds of ordinances do not reduce the incidence of dog bites. Municipalities spend thousands of dollars passing these types of laws, only to find they didn't have the desired effect, and are routinely defeated in legal challenges.
In addition, the actual number of serious dog attacks is much smaller than the media would have us believe. Not only that, the dogs involved in the majority of biting incidents are not the breeds we see on the evening news.
Does your local news reflect the fact that 'pit bulls' are typically only involved in 0-10% of dog biting incidents? If not, what does that say about the honesty and ethics of your local media? (Read more about 'media slant' here.)
No reputable organizations support breed bans.
Since BSL was first introduced, no region has shown a decrease in the number or severity of dog bites after a breed has been banned. In fact, many regions show an increase in dog biting incidents. Since the banned or restricted breeds typically make up only 0-10% of reported bites, the overwhelming majority of aggressive dogs and their owners remain unaffected by BSL. Malevolent dog owners continue operating outside the law, or move on to other breeds; causing spikes in bites by breeds not targeted by BSL. Furthermore, the restrictions that typically accompany BSL are in direct opposition to the responsible dog ownership tenets necessary in developing a good canine citizen.
BSL is a failed social experiment. It's time society scrapped this ill-conceived, ineffective, discriminatory, and unconstitutional kind of legislation in favour of strategies that have been proven successful in reducing dog bites.
As evidence of the failure of BSL, please note:
According to the city of Winnipeg's own data, when Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada banned 'pit bulls' in 1990, there were 214 reported dog bites that year (
with 68 bites by German Shepherds and crosses, 18 bites by Terrier crosses, 16 bites by Labs and their crosses, and 11 bites by 'pit bulls'). For the decade following Winnipeg's 'pit bull' ban, there were an average of close to 50 MORE dog bites per year, with immediate spikes in bites by German Shepherds and crosses (92 bites in 1991, and 97 bites in 1992); Terrier cross (29 bites in 1991, and 34 bites in 1992); up to 2001, when the top biters were
German Shepherd and crosses 64 bites, Rottweiler and crosses 37 bites, and Lab and crosses 30 bites.
Dog bites actually INCREASED after 'pit bulls' were banned in Winnipeg.
Bites by other breeds spiked after 'pit bulls' were banned in Winnipeg.
There had been just over 500 reported bites, the year Kitchener, Ontario, Canada decided to ban the #8 'breed' in their dog bite statistics ('pit bulls', but not the #1 breed, German Shepherds, and not even the #7 breed, Poodles). Eight years later, the city again reported just over 500 dog bites.
The 'pit bull' ban hasn't reduced dog bites in Kitchener.
According to the BBC, hospitalizations due to dog bites increased by 25% after 'pit bulls' were banned in Britain.
German states enacted sweeping breed bans, only to have the Federal Administrative Court decree that a state cannot ban ownership of a dog based on breed.
Holland banned 'pit bulls' entirely, yet admits that very few 'pit bulls' have actually been involved in biting incidents.
12 U.S. state governments have gone so far as to pass laws making it illegal for any municipality to pass breed-specific ordinances.
The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed.
Boulder, CO considered banning 'pit bulls' despite these facts.
The best estimate is 70 'pit bulls' were involved in dog-related, human fatalities during the past 40 years. 70, out of at least 24,000,000 dogs,
means that 99.99998% of 'pit bulls' are innocent of these kinds of accusations. 99.99998%!!! Could the actions of 0.00002% of ANY group possibly say anything about the group as a whole? Far more than 0.00002% of men are involved in physical attacks against humans.
Far more than 10-15dogs are murdered by humans each year.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, developed a successful method for reducing dog bites, and even making their animal control department financially self-sufficient...and they did so without banning any breeds. Calgary boasts the lowest dog bite rate of any major Canadian city, after having reduced dog bites by 70% using the very techniques nearly all experts agree are key in reducing unprovoked dog bites:
Educational programs to teach dog owners what responsible dog ownership is, and what their responsibilities, as dog owners, are.
Increased access to off-leash parks for proper socialization of dogs is vital. Representatives from Calgary feel that a large part of their success in reducing dog bites is attributed to the ample access dog owners have to leash-free parks for socialization purposes. Calgary has the largest number of dedicated off-leash areas, of any major city in Canada.
We've been saying this for years (and Calgary's experience suggests we're right!), "When the studies are done, we'll find that the cities with best access to leash-free parks [for socialization, exercise, and training] will be the cities with the least number of dog bites."
Enforcement against habitually negligent dog owners plays a crucial role in reducing dog bites. Only by targeting those who are actually causing the problems is there any hope of solving it. It shouldn't have to be said that punishing already law-abiding and responsible dog owners will have zero effect in reducing dog bites...Their dogs are already safe, and well-behaved members of society. Target the dogs that are actually dangerous, then target the appropriate end of the leash: the dog's owner!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you are right, the dogs should have been temparment tested before they went to the adoption event. No shelter is perfect.
The shepherd mix I mentioned previously who had been returned for biting is being returned again by it's foster because she killed a chicken.
Banning is the "easy" solution but wont ever solve the problem. It doesnt take a genius to realize though, these bad people are going to find another breed. Could be a german shepherd, maybe a rottweiller, maybe even a labrador (I have met quite a few nasty labs)
) See the tattoos? (Both on dog and human.) That's proof of vicious intent. 
