|Yes, I appreciate the irony|
of posting a super cute pic
to further my agenda, but
at least I'll admit it!
What bugs me most about the article is the title : "Toronto dog bites fell after pit bull ban". How's that for furthering an agenda? Am I reading the Toronto Star here (and FYI no, I'm not a huge Ford fan)? I have a question for author Patrick Cain. You have shown in your own article a very detailed graph of dog bites over the last ten years. From what I can see German Shepherd bites NEARLY DOUBLE those of Pit Bulls, so why isn't the title of your article, "It's time to ban German Shepherds"?
Bear with me here, but is it possible the slant of your article was at all influenced by the Liberal Party, who have time and time again shown they couldn't care less about animal welfare in this province? If, as the title of the article suggests, the point is to show how "dangerous" Pit Bulls are, why haven't you afforded the same criticism to the other breeds? You see, the problem is never with facts, it's with "reporters" who skew those facts to further their own, or someone else's agenda.
I could go on and on, but I know there's enough of you who will want to chime in, so go ahead and comment, & I promise not to title the comment thread, "Toronto Pet Daily Readers comment on post".