DEFEND-A-BULL Blog

Death-row dog gets a reprieve

2010-07-08T04:43:00.000-04:00

Death-row dog gets a reprieve
Barbara Brown
Special to the Hamilton Spectator
(Jul 7, 2010)

Princess, formerly called a prohibited pitbull terrier, has a new lease on life.

The dog was ordered destroyed by Hamilton Animal Control last month after escaping her home and attacking a smaller terrier, causing bruising and puncture marks to the other animal.

The pitbull was seized and brought to the Dartnall Road pound, where a veterinarian estimated the dog was three or four years old. That would put Princess in the category of a prohibited pitbull under Ontario's 2005 Dog Owners' Liability Act and was an effective death sentence.

Princess, it turns out, was a lucky dog.

Fate, in the form of a more mature age, intervened to save her hide and set the dog on a new path to life outside the province, where pitbulls are not outlawed.

Jaime Stephenson, a Hamilton lawyer and animal advocate, stepped in to fight for Princess and was partly responsible for her stay of execution. She offered to pay for the dog to be spayed and shipped to an animal-rescue group in western Canada.

Jim Gillis, supervisor of municipal law enforcement for animal control services, agreed to postpone the animal's destruction pending an investigation into the dog's background and applicable legislation. The probe turned up a record that indicated Princess had been licensed as a pup five years ago.

The Dog Owners' Liability Act, which took effect in October 2005, banned the breeding, sale and ownership of pitbulls after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people. The law stipulated that a pitbull born within 90 days of the legislation being enacted would be grandfathered and could remain in Ontario as a restricted pitbull.

These pitbulls were required to be licensed, spayed or neutered and muzzled in public.

The new information changed Princess's status from a prohibited to a restricted pitbull.

The dog must still be removed from the province, Gillis said, because her owner had not been in compliance with the law.

He said a staff member trained in animal behaviour tested Princess under the SAFER (Safety Assessment for Evaluating Rehoming) criteria and found she was not aggressive toward humans or about food. The dog did behave aggressively toward other animals, however.

Stephenson met Princess for the first time yesterday at a Burlington veterinary clinic where the dog was taken to be spayed. She said the dog was relaxed and friendly and licked her face when she bent down to pet her.

In addition to a sizeable vet's bill, Stephenson has agreed to pay $15 a day for Princess to be boarded at the pound, pending her removal from the province.

The lawyer said she is in touch with several animal-rescue operations, but added Princess is less of a priority now that she is no longer slated for destruction.

"It's unfortunate that we don't hear about these situations more often because these animals are being put down in this province every day," Stephenson said.

Lawyer fights city to save dog's life

2010-07-03T20:52:00.001-04:00

In TheSpec is an article where a lawyer is trying to save an illegal pit bull and sending it to another province. Did the government of Ontario actually believe that all Ontarian citizens would abide by the law, let alone even understand it?

Last summer the only bullie I saw muzzled was Shasta and one other, only because somebody reported them and then they were enforced to comply. The reason that they thought their dog didn't need to be muzzled was because he was an AmStaff and not a pit bull.

There are so many misconceptions and here's another example.

My mom say a woman with her bullie muzzleless. When she remarked that all pit bulls were to be muzzled by law, the woman replied, 'that's only for purebred pit bulls. Mine isn't.' My mom cautioned her to becareful and perhaps she should look closer into Ontario's Pit bull law.

Last summer, a friend ran in holding the cutest little puppy. She was going to ask her hubby for $50 for it.

I asked her what breed was it and she confessed she didn't know. I asked where it came from and she said there was a guy in the car selling pups.

The pup had all the features of a pit bull. Looked so much like Shasta as a pup except for different colouring. I told her what breed of dog I thought it was and also said the people selling out of cars are either back yard breeders or the dogs have come from a puppy mill where they can't be traced.

I explained a bit about the Pit bull law and the hardships she would be facing buying an illegal pup, especially when there are so many dogs in the Humaine Societies. SPCA's and rescues.

I was so happy, yet saddened as I watched her take the pup back.

So many illegal bullies and crosses that their owners aren't even aware of. One day, there's a knock at the door and suddenly the family pet is carted off and the family are in disbelief. They claim, 'but he's never harmed anyone or anything!'

Out of all this, who is the only one's that are really suffering as they go to their doom? They feel fear, yet don't understand. Some stranger is carting him off from the family he called his own.

Dog's have high intuition and know danger is approaching. Just like the dog in the article when being examined by the vet. She wasn't with a family member to reassure her the vet would not harm her. She's been taken away from all that she knows. Strangers are suddenly examining her. The vet says, she showed aggression. SHE WAS AFRAID!!!

Lawyer fights city to save dog's life
Aggressive pit bull 'deserves chance'

Barbara Brown
Jun 30, 2010

A three-year-old pit bull terrier called Princess is on death row at the municipal pound, awaiting a decision of the City of Hamilton's legal department.

Princess has several strikes against her.

First, she is alleged to be a prohibited pit bull under Ontario's Dog Owner's Liability Act.

Second, she has not been spayed and is too young to have been grandfathered when the province enacted the law in 2005.

Third, she is accused of attacking and mauling a smaller dog.

At the heart of the legal battle are provisions of animal-control legislation, which stipulate pit bulls that bite humans or domestic animals must be destroyed.

Jaime Stephenson -- a criminal lawyer who is also an animal advocate -- believes Princess deserves a chance to live in another province.

The Hamilton lawyer, who has a purebred male boxer, said Princess should have an opportunity to show that in the right environment with the right kind of supervision, she can become a properly behaved dog.

"I try my best to be an animal advocate and I'm not blind to the fact that, unfortunately, some of these animals cannot be rehabilitated. But I believe they deserve a chance," said Stephenson.

The lawyer contacted animal control authorities and offered to pay to have Princess spayed and to be shipped to an animal-rescue organization in western Canada.

The dog belonged to one of Stephenson's clients until two weeks ago, when she was seized by Hamilton animal control officers after escaping her home and attacking the other dog.

A veterinarian, who examined Princess at the Dartnall Road pound, determined the dog was a prohibited pit bull terrier of between three and four years of age.

Stephenson was advised by staff at the pound that the dog would be destroyed by order of a veterinarian under the Animals for Research Act.

The dog also became subject to this legislation after being seized.

The lawyer fired off a letter to Jim Gillis, supervisor of municipal law enforcement for animal control services, stating her intention to bring an application before a Hamilton court for a stay of execution.

Gillis confirmed yesterday that the destruction of the animal has been delayed, while the city's legal department looks into the different pieces of legislation and the history of the dog.

He said Princess continued to show aggressive behaviour while being examined by the veterinarian.

The Ontario government enacted the Dog Owner's Liability Act in 2005 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls, after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the law in 2008, finding that pit bulls were dangerous and unpredictable dogs that had the potential to attack without warning.

bbrown@thespec.com

Michael Bryant's pit bull ban fails to totally eliminate dog-on-human violence: THS report

2010-05-01T02:12:00.000-04:00

Michael Bryant's pit bull ban fails to totally eliminate dog-on-human violence: THS report
by John Michael McGrath
April 30, 2010

Man's best friend or worst enemy?
(Image: audreyjm529)

In 2005, after a few headline-grabbing incidents of pit bulls mauling small children, the Ontario government moved to ban any new pit bulls in the province. (Being anti-child-mauling is an easy call for a politician.)

It’s now five years on—is the ban working? Predictably, the Toronto Humane Society (THS) says no.

Reports the Toronto Star:

There were 5,714 incidents in 2004, the year before the Liberal government rolled out breed-specific legislation to ban the sale and importation of pit bulls. Owners were required to get their pit bulls spayed or neutered, and must muzzle and leash them in public.

Despite the law, the Humane Society found the number of dog bites dropped slightly to between 5,350 and 5,500 in the last four years.

“It is clear that the new law has not worked. It has not reduced the number of dog bites and increased public safety. All it does is punishing one breed of dogs,” said society spokesman Ian McConachie.

That law was pushed through by Michael Bryant, the former attorney general who now faces serious charges related to the death of a cyclist.

The law was opposed by, among others, the THS, which has spent the last year battling charges of animal cruelty. If it was possible for Bryant’s reputation to be even more tarnished, this might do it. (Though the Globe points out these numbers are hardly iron-clad.) Of course, THS isn’t a neutral party in this, seeing as they just recently had to put down Bandit, the dog whose attack on a child started all this.

In an argument between a disgraced AG and a scandal-plagued animal shelter, is there a way they could both lose? We can’t think of one, but we’re confident they’ll both find a way.

• Pit-bull ban hasn’t reduced bites: THS [Globe and Mail]
• Humane society says new law doesn’t nip dog bites [CBC]
• Pit bull ban hasn’t cut dog bites [Toronto Star]

Media down plays dog bite causing car crash

2010-04-23T04:00:00.001-04:00

The reason I'm sharing this story from the Ottawa Citizen is the difference it makes between if these were dogs of the Pit bull breeds, the heading would have been more along the lines in bold lettering, 'Pit bull attacks man, causing car to crash in to Gleb coffee shop'.

It would have included the Ontario ban with all the same fan fare that really grabs your attention. When they were banned. Why they were banned. Every juicy tid bit they could glorify their story with.

These dogs were down played whereas had they have been of the Pit bull breeds, the dogs would have been the main focus of this accident.

We already know that the media is one of the breeds worse enemies slandering their reputations and putting fear into the hearts of those that read the articles.

Obviously these dogs, breeds unmentioned simply bit a driver badly enough to cause this collition, but there was no Animal Control officers present and why would there be? For the simple fact that they simply weren't Pit bulls or any type of dogs remotely close to their breeds that could compare.

It only goes to show that the media isn't stating facts as they are suppose to do to inform the public, but rather dramatizing stories to make headlines otherwise why the downplay of these dogs.

Of course, this comes to no surprise to us who are already educated about the Pit bull breeds and stories like this are a dime a dozen rather than a headline breaker.

Dog bites man, car hits Glebe coffee shop
One driver injured, store patrons unscathed
By Tony Spears, The Ottawa Citizen
April 22, 2010

Reader Rich Redmond witnessed a two-car collision at Bank Street and Second Avenue which culminated in one car striking the window of a Bridgehead coffee shop, Ottawa,
Police said the driver of one car — who was bitten by a dog in his vehicle — was treated by paramedics for a dog bite. No others were injured.
Photograph by: Rich Redmond, Reader photo
Do you have pictures of the accident? Share them with us at ottawacitizen.com/readerphotos.

OTTAWA — A dog bit the driver of a moving car in the Glebe, sending it careening into a second car and a coffee shop Thursday afternoon.

The driver, a man in his early 20s, was assessed at the Bridgehead coffee shop on Bank Street between Second and Third avenues for a dog bite, paramedics spokesman J.P. Trottier said.

His female companion, in her early 20s, and the other driver — a woman in her 50s — were also assessed, but no one was taken to hospital, said Trottier.

Two dogs in the man's car were unharmed, he said.

The coffee shop suffered "no real discernable damage," Trottier said, adding it appeared the male driver had only "nudged" the Bridgehead building.

Bridgehead's clientele also escaped unscathed.

Chris Robinson witnessed the "tail end" of the crash and e-mailed the Citizen.

I heard this big booming sound," he wrote. "Then I turned and saw a black car smashing a car from behind … almost nailing this pedestrian (that guy was lucky)."

Paramedics said the original 911 call had been for a struck pedestrian, but that no pedestrians had actually been injured.

Police were investigating late Thursday afternoon. Staff Sgt. Gerry Sabourin said it was too early to say if charges would be laid.

Dogs pass pit bull test, head home

2010-04-21T15:55:00.000-04:00

Dogs pass pit bull test, head home
By TAMARA CHERRY, Toronto Sun

Brittany and Rambo are home — and for the record, they’re not pit bulls.

More than three months after the City of Brampton took two dogs from their owners, charging that they were illegally bred pit bulls, the city conceded this week that the dogs were indeed not pit bulls and returned them to their owners Monday.

It was welcome news for the Branco and Gaspar families who say they burned through thousands of dollars in legal fees to get their pooches home — something they say should have happened months ago.

It was Jan. 13 that Brampton Animal Services officers seized the two-year-old siblings from their homes.

Officials alleged the dogs’ father, Tyson, was a registered pit bull. Moreover, the city had a veterinarian sign a certificate stating his opinion that Brittany and Rambo were pit bulls, the city’s lawyer, Barnet Kussner, said Tuesday.

Pit bulls were banned in Ontario in 2005.

But Rui Branco, who owned Tyson until July 2008 and whose sister, Inez, owns Brittany, contended Tuesday that Tyson was never registered as a pit bull. He and lawyer Megan Burkett, who represented the owners in a dogged battle with the city, said the city never showed them the evidence that Tyson was a pit bull.

Branco, along with Maria Gaspar, 75, who owns Rambo, maintained that their dogs are part boxer, part American bulldog.

Though the owners also had a veterinarian agree the dogs were not pit bulls, they faced a deadline to send the dogs to a province that accepts pit bulls. That deadline was pushed aside pending the legal battle.

Under provincial legislation, pit bulls were banned in Ontario in 2005.

“(The Dog Owners’ Liability Act) doesn’t really provide any clear process on how a municipality can determine a breed,” Kussner said. “There’s no formal avenue of appeal by an owner when the breed determination is in question. So really, we were sort of into uncharted waters in certain respects.”

After months of back-and-forth between the city and the owners, the two sides agreed to bring in an independent veterinarian.

The vet examined the dogs Friday and “concluded that the dogs are not pit bulls under DOLA,” a City of Brampton press release said.

“We’re elated,” Branco said Tuesday. “(Brittany) gave the entire family what we call a European wash, which is where she licks us from head to toe ... Her little (tail) was going crazy.”

At the Gaspar home, owner and dog couldn’t be happier, family friend Nelio Dacomceicao said.

“She’s finally smiling,” Dacomceicao said of Gaspar. “Her dogs are like her kids.”

As part of the agreement between the owners and the city, the dogs must be designated and licensed as “potentially dangerous dogs,” which means they have to be microchipped, sterilized and leashed and muzzled in public.

Kussner called the designation an “appropriate compromise” that balances the rights of the owners against the need to protect the community under the dog owners’ legislation and city rules.

“It can still be a dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog even if it’s another breed other than a pit bull,” Kussner said. “(The city) has got to be proactive to protect the community under the provincial legislation.”

The Gaspars are concerned about whether Rambo was injured while in the shelter for more than three months as he came home with a bite mark on his head, cuts on his ears and a lump on his ribs, Dacomceicao said. The injuries will be checked out when the family brings Rambo in to be sterilized Thursday, he said.

Cross post freely; Philip and Ginger need your help!

2010-04-16T19:13:00.001-04:00

Cross post freely;
Philip and Ginger need your help!

The Government is at it again, we need to fight for our rights in court.

THE DLCC's second annual " DOLLARS FOR DOGS" Campaign on behalf of Phillip and Ginger, the Huggins family.

Law abiding citizens are not being targeted by the ban". Former Attorney General for Ontario, Michael Bryant Sept 2005.

Nothing could be further from the truth if you happen to own a dog of unknown genetics in Ontario.

Knowing that any dog born with the wrong 'look' , Phillip Huggins made sure his best friend, an 8 year old " brown-haired" girl named Ginger was in full compliance with the regulations of DOLA.

On November 29, 2005, while Phillip's Mother was walking Ginger, leashed and muzzled, in a Toronto park, Ginger was savagely attacked by an unleased dog.

So savage was the attack on Ginger, that Buddy ( an alleged border collie/shepherd cross ) tore Ginger's muzzle off and inflicted severe injuries to both Phillip's mom and Ginger. Ginger now has permanent damage to her left eye.

Now you think that it would be the owner of Buddy, that would be charged.
But not so. Buddy's owner walked away VIRTUALLY scott free

Ginger wasn’t so lucky. The City of Toronto Animal Control Officers seized Ginger illegally, without warrant or consent of Ginger's owner.

Within hours, a 'destruction' order was placed on Ginger's life while Phillip was charged with 3 counts under DOLA. .Prosecutors attempted to strike a deal with Phillip, offering to drop all charges if he ' simply ' handed over Ginger to be killed. Phillip would have nothing to do with it and said he would fight to the end.

Ginger spent 3 ½ years incarcerated simply for defending herself and Phillip's mother.

As a result of the charges and the battle in court, Phillip lost his job, ended up on welfare and now suffers with depression.

Out of money and time, Clayton Ruby, an established Human Rights lawyer, took over the case. He knew the City of Toronto was wrongfully holding Ginger in the pound. Within days, Clayton Ruby went before a judge and Ginger was released back to her loving home until the next court date.

Despite a ruling which allowed Ginger to be free, the City of Toronto was granted an appeal on the ruling.

Phillip is yet again scheduled to appear in court again on May 26, 2010 at 10:30 AM The Court of Appeals for Ontario. Ginger is still at risk of losing her life.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

As a result of the city of Toronto being granted an appeal, it is costing a lot more than what was anticipated.

If Phillip doesn't raise the funds, he may lose his appeal, Ginger will lose her life.

He has come this far, if he stops now the city will be granted the destruction order and Ginger will be destroyed.

Your financial help would be greatly appreciated.

Go to http://www.dlcc.ca to donate

Please send payment in trust for Ginger to:

Ruby and Shiller
11 Prince Arthur Ave,
Toronto, ON
M5R 1B2

Boxer mixes caught up in pit bull controversy

2010-02-04T04:43:00.001-05:00

Boxer mixes caught up in pit bull controversy

Timothy Appleby

Toronto — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published on Wednesday, Feb. 03, 2010

Ontario's pit bull law claims more victims, including Rambo, a Brampton dog whose vet says he's a boxer. The city says he's a pit bull.

One veterinarian's boxer is another vet's pit bull.

As a result, Rambo and his sister Brittany are languishing behind bars at the City of Brampton's animal shelter, possibly headed for the death chamber.

Their aggrieved owners, meanwhile, complain that whatever the city may say, neither beast is a pit bull at all.

Pit bulls are a type of dog rather than a breed and have garnered numerous headlines and a couple of high-profile court hearings since an amendment to Ontario's Dog Owners' Liability Act took effect four years ago.

Under the new rules, pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire bull terriers and American pit bull terriers are outlawed; those already here were allowed to remain, providing they be muzzled and leashed.

Straightforward enough. However, the legislation also contains a clause banning any dog “that has the appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to” those specified.

For Rambo and Brittany, born in separate litters to the same parents, that inclusiveness has spelled bad news and their future looks bleak: If homes are not found for them outside Ontario they may be euthanized, though no execution date has been set.

Rambo belongs to 75-year-old Maria Gaspar. Brittany's home is across town with the Branco family.

Both were seized Jan. 13 by city animal control officials who said they believed the dogs were pit bulls.

Not so, says Rui Branco, who will host a press conference outside his Reeve Road home Wednesday morning in efforts to highlight the plight of the two siblings, neither of which is known to have attacked or threatened anyone.

Rather, their perceived sin rests with their lineage.

The dogs' mother was Jersey, a purebred boxer. No problem there.

But their dad was Tyson, born shortly after the pit bull law took effect in late November, 2005, and a survivor of the ban, apparently through an oversight. He was, nonetheless, classified as a pit bull, although Tyson's family vet disagrees, calling him “a healthy and well-socialized pet … a cross between an American bulldog and a boxer.”

Either way, Tyson's label as a pit bull means his offspring are deemed pit bulls, too.

“Animal Services has documentary and veterinary evidence that (Rambo and Brittany) are pit bulls,” city spokeswoman Mariam Mesbah said.

“The bottom line is that if the mother or the father is a pit bull and documented as such, any of their brood would be considered pit bulls. We are required by law to follow the legislation.”

Lawyer Megan Burkett, acting for the Brancos, is preparing a court motion to get both dogs back on grounds they were improperly seized, and says the law casts too wide a net.

“Tyson is an American bulldog and a boxer and if they wanted boxer to be in the legislation, it should have said boxer,” she said.

“That's what's causing the problem. Our position is that he looks like a boxer. A lot of breeds are being caught up in this that shouldn't be.”

Rambo's troubles began when he was spotted atop his doghouse in his fenced yard, and his detention left his elderly owner, Ms. Gaspar, distraught.

For the previous two years the city had licensed him as a boxer/American bulldog cross, she told a local newspaper, and his vaccination certificate states that.

Brittany was picked up later the same day. And her vet, Dr. David Kirkham, voices the same complaint of mistaken identity. “I don't understand why (city officials) are fighting me so hard on this,” he said.

“Brittany doesn't look anything like a pit bull.”

Last June, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to consider whether the four-year-old law is unconstitutional.

Free, mandatory dog tags will take a bite out of taxpayers' pockets.

2009-10-30T06:12:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting publication I found in The Age Dispatch.

In London, I pay $20 annually for a cat tag for Enok. He is strickly an indoor cat, but ACC told me that "if accidently" your cat gets out, it has ID for them to return the cat home. I've always bought these cat tags since the by-law first came out quite a few years ago for every cat I've owned.

First of all, a cat collar is dangerous if it got caught on a branch or anything and could choke your cat. Now they make collars that if that were to happen, it has a release and would fall off the cat.

All this is well and fine, but if kitty did happen to disappear, how is ACC going to find your cat without the tag?

Not so long ago, I coluldn't find Enok anywhere in my small apartment. I searched everywhere, calling for him to no avail.

I searched all 3 floors of the halls in the building and even knocked on doors. NO ENOK!

I searched outside EVERYWHERE and asked neighbours...no Enok!

I was about to make some lost cat posters, but wanted to call ACC first. I was told that unless cats are microchipped or tattooed, they do not even take information on your cat.

I had just hug up the phone and guess who came out to see me? You guessed it. Enok was napping somewhere while I was franticly trying to find him. BratCAT!

My point is if that's the case, why are we paying a yearly fee for a worthless cat tag?

Dog licensing I totally understand and approve of...even though Shasta is also microchipped. Manditory for the Pit bull breeds.

As far as taxpayers paying for other peoples pooches, I believe that should be up to the responsible dog owner or they shouldn't be allowed a dog.

There are resourses that people can turn to that may be low income and not able to pay the full ammount, but can make payments back as can be afforded. I see no reason why taxpayers should have to pay unless this is towards a rescue or animal care group.

Free, mandatory dog tags will take a bite out of taxpayers’ pockets
Posted By BY DEBORA VAN BRENK, Sun Media

Free, mandatory dog tags will take a bite out of taxpayers’ pockets as Strathroy-Caradoc becomes the first in Ontario to link the full cost of animal control to everyone.

“Everybody pays. No matter whether you have a pet or never had a pet, you will use this service,” whether it’s to retrieve a lost cat or complain about a barking dog, said Strathroy-Caradoc Mayor Mel Veale.

“It's a total municipal responsibility for animal control.”

Now, tags cost $20 to $35 a year per dog, but animal control officer Gertie Dieleman often has had to make as many as four visits to collect fees on one license. It’s both a waste of her time and a confrontation waiting to happen, Veale said.

“I didn’t hire her to be a (bill) collector. I hired her to protect the welfare of animals,” he said.

The tags will still be mandatory for dogs and, in a new step, will be voluntary for cats starting Jan. 1, 2010.

Additional cost to the taxpayer will be about $7 per household. Each already pays about $2.50 a year to cover animal control costs not covered by dog-licensing fees.

“Boy, it’s going to take a load off my back,” said Dieleman, who also operates Animal Care Centre Lobo. “For over 30 years I’ve been licensing dogs and it’s been great for 80 percent to 90 percent of dog owners.”

For a small minority, though, she has on occasion had to call police for support.

“I have been quite intimidated in situations where I was worried for my safety.”

She said council’s decision is a philosophical shift that ensures more animals can be found and returned if lost or hurt.

Names, addresses and breed types will be entered into the shelter’s database so the pet can be returned to its owner if the animal has a tag, she said.

Administrative costs should also drop because people will be able to apply for tags online and at various stores, rather than Dieleman having to visit and collect from each delinquent pet owner. The tags will also be valid for the pet’s lifetime instead of needing annual renewal.

There are 3,000 licensed dogs and 6,000 households in the municipality. Dieleman said it’s likely that eliminating tag fees will bring to light more dogs that have been unlicensed.

The total cost of animal control there is about $85,000 a year.

Those who argue they shouldn’t pay because they don’t have a pet are overlooking all the other things they pay for – skateboard parks, traffic lights – that may apply only to some residents but are also for the general good, said township clerk Angela Toth.

Other elements of the animal control bylaw, such as muzzle orders and the process for complaining about barking dogs, remain in effect, she said.

Strathroy-Caradoc Council has debated the issue for about two years. The bylaw passed in a special committee-of-the-whole session Monday night by a 5-3 vote.

Veale said some other municipalities have taken on licensing, but none that he knows of has decided to spread the costs among all taxpayers.

In London, about half the cost of animal control comes from dog-license fees and half from taxpayers, said Jay Stanford, head of environmental services.

Rather than drop dog fees, the city is looking to expand its reach with better ways to control cat numbers. Mississauga, for example, now has a bylaw requiring cats to be microchipped so they can be returned to their homes if found.

Gerry Nicicholls: Ontario learns to distrust its ban-happy Premier

2009-10-30T04:38:00.000-04:00

There might be hope for us yet now that the eyes of the Ontario people eyes are opening. If this happens, we may even be able to eliminate the horrible Pit bull Ban while we're at it.

While our court fight ended against all we believed and we were in disbelief of the outcome, our fight has never ended. Could this finally be our redemption? Hopefully.

Gerry Nicholls: Ontario learns to distrust its ban-happy Premier
Posted: October 28, 2009, 1:20 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Gerry Nicholls, Canadian politics

Something strange is going on in the world of Ontario politics.

Ontarians are suddenly getting passionate.

And this is a big change; for years political passion of any kind was lacking in Ontario.

Simply put, nobody seemed to care what was happening at the provincial government level.

This in turn translated into a political dynamic where there was no desire to keep the governing Liberals in power and no desire to drive them out. The Liberals were just there, unloved but also unhated.

This state of affairs, by the way, suited Premier Dalton McGuinty just fine.

In fact, his mind-numbing governing style seemed designed to keep Ontario voters in a catatonic state.

He stayed away from controversial or sweeping changes and settled down to mainly banning things – he banned using cell phones while driving, he banned pit bulls, he banned smoking in cars, and in the process tried to ban any sense of personality responsibility.
And it worked.

McGuinty and his boring, banning Liberals won a landslide majority in the last election and since then had maintained a huge lead in public opinion polls --- until now.

Things are changing. All of a sudden, Ontarians are turning on the Liberals.

According to a recent Environics Poll Liberal support now stands at 32 percent of decided voters which is down a whopping 12 points since June. Meanwhile the usually sad-sack Opposition Progressive Conservatives have surged ahead of the Liberals and stand at 37 per cent support.

What happened?

Well the McGuinty Liberals have taken some real hits lately: the ehealth scandal, ministerial resignations, the mushrooming provincial deficit, embarrassing Auditor-General reports, an unpopular HST and then there’s the millstone of his unpopular federal Liberal cousins.

All of this, of course, helps to explain McGuinty’s poor poll numbers.

But maybe something else is at work. Maybe Ontarians are just waking up and recognizing their leader for what he truly is: a lacklustre politician, who wants to make government bigger and more costly, who wants to make taxes higher and who consistently meddles in people's lives.

If this keeps up and if the polls continue to show a drop in Liberal support, Premier McGuinty will have only one choice, he will have to ban opinion polls

National Post

Repealing the Pit Bull Ban « Randy Hillier for Leader

2009-04-29T06:11:00.002-04:00

Repealing the Pit Bull Ban

The Ontario Legislation Banning specific Breeds was passed by the Liberals in reaction to sensationalized dog bites. The Liberals rushed this legislation through without addressing the root cause – irresponsible dog owners – and unfairly targeted and branded Pit Bulls and other large dogs.
The Liberal’s have put every dog breed is at risk of being banned in Ontario as long as this law exists.
The effect of the law is that it unjustly targets responsible dog owners and brands Pit Bulls and other larger doges as dangerous when all responsible dog owners know this is false and does nothing to advance public safety.
As the Premier of this Province and owner of “Robbie” (a Pitt Bull mix) I will overturn this specific breed ban. I will work in cooperation with groups like the CKC and other dog clubs have, to get this legislation overturned
I will do my part to assist them to overturn this unjust law and protect people’s freedom to own dogs while protecting the public from people who own or train dogs in a manner that is dangerous to the public.
Notes
On June 9, 2008 Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Gerda Verburg (Netherlands) announced the ban on Pit Bulls will be cancelled before the end of the year. The reason for this was that there was no reduction of biting incidents with dogs since Pit Bulls were banned. The ban was installed in 1993 after three biting incidents where three children were killed.¹ New rules will no longer select on breed or Molosser looks but require a behaviour test for any large dog that shows signs of aggression²
“Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls”. Asia.news.yahoo.com. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080609/ap/d916m6uo2.html. Retrieved on 2008-12-25.
Dutch news site mentioning the end of the Pit Bull ban on June 9, 2008

2009-04-19T12:25:00.000-04:00

Deadly dog attacks have come to this: Ban pit bulls statewide
by The Bay City Times
Sunday April 19, 2009

We have had it with vicious dogs in Michigan, particularly the types known as pit bull terriers.

Ban the breeds.

Dogs have mauled four people to death in Michigan since September. Pit bulls severely mauled two people in Saginaw County last month. A Bay City man wrote in the People's Forum on this page to thank passersby for rescuing him and his dog last month from two attacking pit bulls in the city's South End. Fed up with the danger, a Saginaw man is trapping stray pit bulls in his neighborhood.

Just last week, sheriff's deputies killed on the spot three vicious dogs - described as a Australian shepherd-blue heelers mix - suspected in the death of a 41-year-old Huron County man. In September, a Rottweiler killed a 4-month-old girl in Warren. A day later, two American bulldogs attacked and killed two people in Livingston County. In 2006, a Hamtramck couple's two pit bulls killed their 6-year-old daughter.

It's a rampage of horror by animals that are supposed to be pets.

Vicious dogs have no place in society.

There would be a great hue and cry for action if these deadly attacks had come from wild animals.

Yet, bizarrely, we tolerate dog breeds among us that we know are selected, bred and raised to be stone killers.

No more.

A statewide ban on pit bull breeds and harsh penalties for the owner of any dog that mauls a human are in order.

Pit bull owners and admirers will say, as they have when a few Michigan municipalities started such bans, that it isn't fair to pick on a certain breed of dog.

Oh yes it is.

The frightening reputation of pit bulls didn't just pop out of nowhere.

Pit bull terriers are fighting dogs. Often, they are raised for illegal dog fights. Too many owners mistreat them into meanness for a twisted, macho-man display. Pit bulls are the tough-guy dog of choice.

Raised in cruelty, dogs can and do grow into vicious killers.

Four-legged sticks of dynamite that explode into attack mode if anything lights their fuse.

The flip side, of course, is that many pit bull owners are kind to their pets. Their dogs are well-mannered and friendly. We've met some of them; nice dogs.

So why not just ban vicious dogs, and not pick on pit bulls?

It's easier to spot the breed, which has a known history of mistreatment and killing, than the behavior. By the time a person discovers a dog is vicious, they're already under attack.

A pit bull ban isn't a novel idea. That great nation of dog lovers, the United Kingdom, outlawed "bully" breeds in 1991. The Canadian province of Ontario, our neighbors, banned the breed in 2005.

In contrast, scattered municipal ordinances in Michigan are all bark, with little bite.

Enact a statewide ban. Model it on Ontario's or the UK's. Responsible owners of docile pit bulls might be allowed to have their pets tested for aggression, registered and microchipped.

It's too bad that it has come to this for pit bulls, the poor things. Almost any dog, including this breed, can be bred and raised into a great pet or working companion - or both.

But this dog has been abused. Through society's and breeders' failure to police the breed, its reputation for savagery now precedes it.

Ban the breed. And aggressively prosecute the owner of any vicious dog, of any type.

Some dog owners will howl in outrage.

Consider, though, the price of doing nothing. Four dead in Michigan, in eight months. Killed by "pets."

That's the outrage.

Dog owners seeks Supreme Court challenge to Ontario's pit-bull ban

2009-04-17T00:24:00.003-04:00

Dog owner seeks Supreme Court challenge to Ontario’s pit-bull ban

April 16, 2009
TORONTO — The lawyer for a pit-bull owner fighting Ontario’s ban on the dogs is hoping the Supreme Court of Canada will reverse a decision allowing the law to stand.

Civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby has filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of Toronto dog owner Catherine Cochrane asking for a review of an Appeal Court decision last October that upholds the province’s ban.

“It’s important to take every step we can against breed-specific legislation which assumes that it’s the nature of the breed that creates danger when in fact it’s the owners who create danger,” Ruby said today.

“There are some people who want dangerous dogs. If you ban one breed, they’ll be quickly on to another.”

The Appeal Court concluded in October that pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable dogs that have the potential to attack without warning.

Ruby is challenging that ruling, arguing the court failed to focus on whether the law was too broad and was also wrong in upholding a provision that allows veterinarians to determine whether the dog is in fact a pit bull.

He said that provision unfairly reverses the presumption of innocence.

“We’re raising constitutional issues,” Ruby said. “We think the law is too vague.

The whole definition of what’s a pit bull leaves it open to huge doubt, and that’s contrary to our constitutional guarantees.”

The Ontario government enacted the Dog Owners’ Liability Act in 2005 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people.

The law survived a constitutional challenge in March 2007, with some changes ordered. At the time, it was decided that a ban on “pit-bull terriers” was unconstitutionally vague because it didn’t refer to a specific type or breed of dog.

The Appeal Court disagreed, restoring the law to the form in which it was enacted and stating the ban on the breed did not violate any constitutional rights.

After that October ruling, Ruby began considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

“There is no scientific or statistical basis to conclude that dogs captured by the definition of ‘pit bulls’ are more dangerous than other dogs,” Ruby wrote in his submission to the Supreme Court.
“No studies have been done on the origins or characteristics of the dog population in Ontario in general or on the behavioural trends of dogs captured by the definition of ‘pit bulls’ in the act.”

Crown experts who have testified about dog bites in the U.S. “readily admitted that they were not familiar with the Canadian situation and that there was little or no data, let alone scientific study, done on the Canadian situation,” he added.

Ruby acknowledged it will be difficult to get the Supreme Court to hear the case since it only takes on about 75 cases a year, but he said all legal channels must be explored.

“It will affect an undoing of the ban if we’re right,” Ruby said.

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley declined to comment on the matter, saying it is before the courts.

Clayton Ruby seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Ontario pit-bull ban

2009-04-16T21:06:00.004-04:00

Clayton Ruby seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Ontario pit-bull ban

TORONTO, April 16 /CNW/ - Civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby has filed an
application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of
dog owner, Catherine Cochrane, regarding the Ontario government's law banning
pit-bulls: the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

On October 24, 2008, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its
decision dismissing Ms. Cochrane's appeal and allowing the Ontario
government's cross-appeal. As a result, all of the amendments to the Dog
Owners' Liability Act introduced back in 2005 were upheld, even those that the
trial judge, Justice Herman, originally struck down.

Mr. Ruby is now asking the Supreme Court of Canada to review this case on
five grounds:

(1) the Court of Appeal set the bar too low for the government
in defending the constitutionality of legislation by only requiring the
government to adduce "some evidence" of the harm the legislation is intended
to address;

(2) the Court of Appeal failed to focus on whether the law is
overbroad in "some applications", which is all that is required;

(3) the Court
of Appeal considered the likelihood that individuals will be imprisoned for
violating the law, which is an irrelevant factor in the analysis;

(4) the
Court of Appeal failed to appreciate what degree of guidance a law must
provide in order to not be impermissibly vague; and

(5) the Court of Appeal
erred in upholding the part of the law that allows a veterinarian's
certificate to constitute proof that the dog is a pit bull in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, a provision which unfairly reverses the presumption
of innocence.

Pit bulls are Ticking Time Bombs

2009-04-14T18:01:00.003-04:00

While Monique Tamminga is a reporter and graduated her college journalism program, it goes to show in this editorial that the need to research a subject isn't necessary. She is adding fuel to an already out of control fire and the bans play out further and further as she sputters out her spew of utter nonsense that many people reading with no factual knowledge of the breeds are learning from.

In MY opinion, I believe Ms Tamminga would be better off as a fictional writer where no research is involved and not influencing people with her ignorance. It was by this very logic from Michael Bryant that the Ontario's Pit bull Ban first originated.

When it comes to ammunition they speak to who ever can support their theory rather than allowing opposing experts in this field have their say. Talk about pick and choose and we in Ontario with our wonderful family members pay the price same as we do by losing socialization skills and get cut out of simple doggy pleasures, such as running for a ball or gnawing on a fallen branch.

Those with 6 foot secure fences around their property are not as secluded and some more fortunate than others to have multi dogs at home to play with even if in the house, if not outside. But then there are some of us that are not allowed and living in rental units. We are all that the dog has and many of us feel so badly that we aren't allowed to offer our dogs more without breaking laws and bylaws. This in itself is heart breaking without hearing and reading more propaganda designed to scare people of some very wonderful and misrepresented breeds.

It doesn't shock me that Tamminga graduated from a journalism program as she represents a vast majority of reporters dishing out the same old fictional crap. Matter of fact, as I read this I felt like I had read it a thousand times before. Change a sentence or two, always mention where prior bans are and add a little detail (just a tad) to make it sound original. Oh, and adding proven myths are always a grabber.

Pit bulls are ticking time bombs? I'm really beginning to think like they do and sterio typing reporters.

My headlines,
REPORTERS ARE TICKING TIMES BOMBS and should be banned due to the severe damage they cause to the minds of innocent victims!

Monique Tamminga - Langley Times
Monique Tamminga has been a reporter with The Langley Times since 2000. She covers Langley City, courts and news. She is a graduate of the Langara College journalism program.
Langley Times

Pit bulls are ticking time bombs

Published: April 14, 2009
Editorial – Just as gun advocates say ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people,’ now pit bull advocates are preaching their mantra – ‘it’s not the breed, it’s the owner’ – after a three-year-old boy was mauled in an unprovoked attack, and a Maple Ridge mother was bitten by a pit bull running loose on a trail. She likely will lose full use of her fingers.

Along with these terrible tales come renewed calls to ban the breed just as countries across the world have done, as well as the province of Ontario and the city of Winnipeg. Prohibiting the sale of pit bulls is something the province should consider.

A dog bite by a golden retriever and an attack by a pit bull produce very different results.

A pit bull locks on to its prey, and even a crow bar can’t always unlock the death grip it can have on someone’s face, arm or leg.

Here’s another reason: When have you ever heard of a pack of labradoodles roaming the streets, then all of sudden turning on an unsuspecting person for a full-out attack?

Pit bull advocates are right: It’s not the breed – it is the owners.

Putting political correctness aside, people who gravitate toward this breed are often the very ones who turn pit bulls into walking time bombs.

People buy this breed to feel tough, to intimidate, to use the breed as guard dogs for drug houses. Most buy this breed and fulfill the stereotype, sorry to say.

Most pit bulls around town don a spiked collar, only furthering their fearful reputation.

It’s often a wonder if pit bull owners get off on watching people walk to the other side of the road. Nothing spoils a fun day at the off-leash park like a pit bull and a bad owner coming out to play.

Then there are those who adopt pit bulls because they have an innate need to save this breed from damnation. Owners of all aggressive breeds are the problem.

But just as we can’t oversee every gun owner to make sure he or she is a responsible person, we can’t trust every pit bull owner to raise these potentially vicious dogs right. The province recently banned the ownership of exotic and wild animals. They should do the same for pit bulls for the same reasons.

A ban won’t stop dog bites from happening, but it will stop bad people from rearing ticking time bombs.

Protect dogs from heartworm disease with perventative screening

2009-03-19T14:28:00.005-04:00

I found this article in the Toronto Community News and thought I'd send you the reminder since it's that time of year where the weather is warming and vacation time is nearing. Let's keep our fur-kids healthy!

Protect dogs from heartworm disease with preventative screening
UrbanAnimal
By JACQUE NEWMAN
March 18, 2009 3:43 PM

Dear UrbanAnimal

Each spring I receive a letter from my vet clinic reminding me about heartworm prevention for my three dogs and two cats. And every spring I wonder why I'm spending the money. How
prevalent is this disease in this part of the world?

Gene

There were 272 heartworm-positive dogs reported in Ontario in 2006. A small number considering the cost of prevention, isn't it? It's important to keep in mind, however, this number was reported by only one blood diagnostic laboratory and, currently, only 25 per cent of owners choose to have their dogs tested for this deadly disease.

While I was unable to find more current statistics based on results from all the labs in Ontario, it's that 25 per cent that keeps leaping out at me. Heartworm disease was first reported in the U.S. in the late 1800s and now, more than 100 years later, it's almost an epidemic in some southern states. Even with all of our knowledge about this disease, only one out of four dogs in the U.S. is tested. Although I couldn't find similar statistics for Canada, it's probable the same ratio applies here. Cats are susceptible to heartworm disease, too. Feline heartworm infection is thought to be at a rate of five to 15 per cent of the dog population.

According to the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA), heartworms are large roundworms that live in the right side of the heart and the blood vessels that supply the lungs, surviving on nutrients they steal from the dog's bloodstream. They can grow to a length of 15 to 30 centimetres and in a severe case, a dog may be infested with hundreds of worms.

Heartworm is transmitted via mosquito, which is why pet owners in southern Ontario receive a heartworm blood test in early spring when mosquitoes begin hatching. A preventive treatment is administered at the start of the season and ends when cooler weather causes mosquitoes to die off. In warmer climates, dogs are kept on heartworm prevention throughout the year. It's extremely dangerous to give heartworm preventive products to an animal who is already infected. That's why Ontario veterinarians screen each animal for existing heartworm prior to administering the preventive medication.

Heartworm larvae are picked up by a mosquito that bites an infected animal. It then bites an unaffected animal, effectively depositing the larvae directly into its bloodstream. Newly affected animals will not show signs of the disease until the larvae grows to its adult stage and enters the animal's pulmonary artery and right side of the heart. Initial symptoms include: persistent cough, lethargy, reduced appetite and weight loss. Advanced symptoms include: enlargement of the liver, abnormal heart rhythm, excessive fluid in the abdominal cavity and loss of consciousness. Affected animals can be treated, but unfortunately, complications from the cure can be toxic. Yes, the treatment can be as deadly as the disease, which is why veterinarians insist pre-screening be performed.

Your veterinarian will send your pet's blood sample to a veterinary laboratory to screen for existing heartworm. If nothing is found, your vet will choose the best preventive product to suit your pet's age, weight and any pre-existing medical conditions. There are several products available and all are administered by the owner at home at specific intervals. Take caution. These meds are prescribed according to the animals' weight and type. Sharing isn't allowed. Your veterinarian will label each product to be given to each animal in your household. Another note of caution is a small number of animals who have been on these products have tested positive for heartworm on their next annual blood screening. One reason is that no product can be 100 per cent effective, but the main reason may be owner error in administration. Read the package instructions carefully and if you have any questions, contact your veterinarian.
Call me paranoid, Gene, but regardless of the reportedly small number of heartworm cases in Ontario (and I suspect the real number is much larger), I'll always opt for preventive measures. It's the 'pay now or pay later' scenario that causes me to have all my animals tested annually and preventive action taken as soon as that first mosquito hatches each spring.

What Pit Bulls Can Teach us About Profiling

2009-02-25T11:55:00.003-05:00

This article is from the DogMagazine.Net.

What Pit Bulls Can Teach us About Profiling
February 19, 2009 by No Author
By Malcolm Gladwell.

1.

One afternoon last February, Guy Clairoux picked up his two-and-a half-year-old son, Jayden, from day care and walked him back to their house in the west end of Ottawa, Ontario. They were almost home. Jayden was straggling behind, and, as his father's back was turned, a pit bull jumped over a back-yard fence and lunged at Jayden. "The dog had his head in its mouth and started to do this shake," Clairoux's wife, JoAnn Hartley, said later. As she watched in horror, two more pit bulls jumped over the fence, joining in the assault. She and Clairoux came running, and he punched the first of the dogs in the head, until it dropped Jayden, and then he threw the boy toward his mother. Hartley fell on her son, protecting him with her body. "JoAnn!" Clairoux cried out, as all three dogs descended on his wife. "Cover your neck, cover your neck." A neighbor, sitting by her window, screamed for help. Her partner and a friend, Mario Gauthier, ran outside. A neighborhood boy grabbed his hockey stick and threw it to Gauthier. He began hitting one of the dogs over the head, until the stick broke. "They wouldn't stop," Gauthier said. "As soon as you'd stop, they'd attack again. I've never seen a dog go so crazy. They were like Tasmanian devils." The police came. The dogs were pulled away, and the Clairouxes and one of the rescuers were taken to the hospital. Five days later, the Ontario legislature banned the ownership of pit bulls. "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."

Pit bulls, descendants of the bulldogs used in the nineteenth century for bull baiting and dogfighting, have been bred for "gameness," and thus a lowered inhibition to aggression. Most dogs fight as a last resort, when staring and growling fail. A pit bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation. Pit bulls seem to have a high tolerance for pain, making it possible for them to fight to the point of exhaustion. Whereas guard dogs like German shepherds usually attempt to restrain those they perceive to be threats by biting and holding, pit bulls try to inflict the maximum amount of damage on an opponent. They bite, hold, shake, and tear. They don't growl or assume an aggressive facial expression as warning. They just attack. "They are often insensitive to behaviors that usually stop aggression," one scientific review of the breed states. "For example, dogs not bred for fighting usually display defeat in combat by rolling over and exposing a light underside. On several occasions, pit bulls have been reported to disembowel dogs offering this signal of submission." In epidemiological studies of dog bites, the pit bull is overrepresented among dogs known to have seriously injured or killed human beings, and, as a result, pit bulls have been banned or restricted in several Western European countries, China, and numerous cities and municipalities across North America. Pit bulls are dangerous.

Of course, not all pit bulls are dangerous. Most don't bite anyone. Meanwhile, Dobermans and Great Danes and German shepherds and Rottweilers are frequent biters as well, and the dog that recently mauled a Frenchwoman so badly that she was given the world's first face transplant was, of all things, a Labrador retriever. When we say that pit bulls are dangerous, we are making a generalization, just as insurance companies use generalizations when they charge young men more for car insurance than the rest of us (even though many young men are perfectly good drivers), and doctors use generalizations when they tell overweight middle-aged men to get their cholesterol checked (even though many overweight middle-aged men won't experience heart trouble). Because we don't know which dog will bite someone or who will have a heart attack or which drivers will get in an accident, we can make predictions only by generalizing. As the legal scholar Frederick Schauer has observed, "painting with a broad brush" is "an often inevitable and frequently desirable dimension of our decision-making lives."

Another word for generalization, though, is "stereotype," and stereotypes are usually not considered desirable dimensions of our decision-making lives. The process of moving from the specific to the general is both necessary and perilous. A doctor could, with some statistical support, generalize about men of a certain age and weight. But what if generalizing from other traits—such as high blood pressure, family history, and smoking—saved more lives? Behind each generalization is a choice of what factors to leave in and what factors to leave out, and those choices can prove surprisingly complicated. After the attack on Jayden Clairoux, the Ontario government chose to make a generalization about pit bulls. But it could also have chosen to generalize about powerful dogs, or about the kinds of people who own powerful dogs, or about small children, or about back-yard fences—or, indeed, about any number of other things to do with dogs and people and places. How do we know when we've made the right generalization?

2.

In July of last year, following the transit bombings in London, the New York City Police Department announced that it would send officers into the subways to conduct random searches of passengers' bags. On the face of it, doing random searches in the hunt for terrorists—as opposed to being guided by generalizations—seems like a silly idea. As a columnist in New York wrote at the time, "Not just 'most' but nearly every jihadi who has attacked a Western European or American target is a young Arab or Pakistani man. In other words, you can predict with a fair degree of certainty what an Al Qaeda terrorist looks like. Just as we have always known what Mafiosi look like—even as we understand that only an infinitesimal fraction of Italian-Americans are members of the mob."

But wait: do we really know what mafiosi look like? In "The Godfather," where most of us get our knowledge of the Mafia, the male members of the Corleone family were played by Marlon Brando, who was of Irish and French ancestry, James Caan, who is Jewish, and two Italian-Americans, Al Pacino and John Cazale. To go by "The Godfather," mafiosi look like white men of European descent, which, as generalizations go, isn't terribly helpful. Figuring out what an Islamic terrorist looks like isn't any easier. Muslims are not like the Amish: they don't come dressed in identifiable costumes. And they don't look like basketball players; they don't come in predictable shapes and sizes. Islam is a religion that spans the globe.

"We have a policy against racial profiling," Raymond Kelly, New York City's police commissioner, told me. "I put it in here in March of the first year I was here. It's the wrong thing to do, and it's also ineffective. If you look at the London bombings, you have three British citizens of Pakistani descent. You have Germaine Lindsay, who is Jamaican. You have the next crew, on July 21st, who are East African. You have a Chechen woman in Moscow in early 2004 who blows herself up in the subway station. So whom do you profile? Look at New York City. Forty per cent of New Yorkers are born outside the country. Look at the diversity here. Who am I supposed to profile?"

Kelly was pointing out what might be called profiling's "category problem." Generalizations involve matching a category of people to a behavior or trait—overweight middle-aged men to heart-attack risk, young men to bad driving. But, for that process to work, you have to be able both to define and to identify the category you are generalizing about. "You think that terrorists aren't aware of how easy it is to be characterized by ethnicity?" Kelly went on. "Look at the 9/11 hijackers. They came here. They shaved. They went to topless bars. They wanted to blend in. They wanted to look like they were part of the American dream. These are not dumb people. Could a terrorist dress up as a Hasidic Jew and walk into the subway, and not be profiled? Yes. I think profiling is just nuts."

3.

Pit-bull bans involve a category problem, too, because pit bulls, as it happens, aren't a single breed. The name refers to dogs belonging to a number of related breeds, such as the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and the American pit bull terrier—all of which share a square and muscular body, a short snout, and a sleek, short-haired coat. Thus the Ontario ban prohibits not only these three breeds but any "dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar" to theirs; the term of art is "pit bull-type" dogs. But what does that mean? Is a cross between an American pit bull terrier and a golden retriever a pit bull-type dog or a golden retriever-type dog? If thinking about muscular terriers as pit bulls is a generalization, then thinking about dangerous dogs as anything substantially similar to a pit bull is a generalization about a generalization. "The way a lot of these laws are written, pit bulls are whatever they say they are," Lora Brashears, a kennel manager in Pennsylvania, says. "And for most people it just means big, nasty, scary dog that bites."

The goal of pit-bull bans, obviously, isn't to prohibit dogs that look like pit bulls. The pit-bull appearance is a proxy for the pit-bull temperament—for some trait that these dogs share. But "pit bullness" turns out to be elusive as well. The supposedly troublesome characteristics of the pit-bull type—its gameness, its determination, its insensitivity to pain—are chiefly directed toward other dogs. Pit bulls were not bred to fight humans. On the contrary: a dog that went after spectators, or its handler, or the trainer, or any of the other people involved in making a dogfighting dog a good dogfighter was usually put down. (The rule in the pit-bull world was "Man-eaters die.")

A Georgia-based group called the American Temperament Test Society has put twenty-five thousand dogs through a ten-part standardized drill designed to assess a dog's stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in the company of people. A handler takes a dog on a six-foot lead and judges its reaction to stimuli such as gunshots, an umbrella opening, and a weirdly dressed stranger approaching in a threatening way. Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund. "We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-bull-type dogs," Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the A.T.T.S., says. "I've tested half of them. And of the number I've tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies. They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with children." It can even be argued that the same traits that make the pit bull so aggressive toward other dogs are what make it so nice to humans. "There are a lot of pit bulls these days who are licensed therapy dogs," the writer Vicki Hearne points out. "Their stability and resoluteness make them excellent for work with people who might not like a more bouncy, flibbertigibbet sort of dog. When pit bulls set out to provide comfort, they are as resolute as they are when they fight, but what they are resolute about is being gentle. And, because they are fearless, they can be gentle with anybody."

Then which are the pit bulls that get into trouble? "The ones that the legislation is geared toward have aggressive tendencies that are either bred in by the breeder, trained in by the trainer, or reinforced in by the owner," Herkstroeter says. A mean pit bull is a dog that has been turned mean, by selective breeding, by being cross-bred with a bigger, human-aggressive breed like German shepherds or Rottweilers, or by being conditioned in such a way that it begins to express hostility to human beings. A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it. A pit-bull ban is a generalization about a generalization about a trait that is not, in fact, general. That's a category problem.

4.

One of the puzzling things about New York City is that, after the enormous and well-publicized reductions in crime in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the crime rate has continued to fall. In the past two years, for instance, murder in New York has declined by almost ten per cent, rape by twelve per cent, and burglary by more than eighteen per cent. Just in the last year, auto theft went down 11.8 per cent. On a list of two hundred and forty cities in the United States with a population of a hundred thousand or more, New York City now ranks two hundred-and-twenty-second in crime, down near the bottom with Fontana, California, and Port St. Lucie, Florida. In the nineteen-nineties, the crime decrease was attributed to big obvious changes in city life and government—the decline of the drug trade, the gentrification of Brooklyn, the successful implementation of "broken windows" policing. But all those big changes happened a decade ago. Why is crime still falling?

The explanation may have to do with a shift in police tactics. The N.Y.P.D. has a computerized map showing, in real time, precisely where serious crimes are being reported, and at any moment the map typically shows a few dozen constantly shifting high-crime hot spots, some as small as two or three blocks square. What the N.Y.P.D. has done, under Commissioner Kelly, is to use the map to establish "impact zones," and to direct newly graduated officers—who used to be distributed proportionally to precincts across the city—to these zones, in some cases doubling the number of officers in the immediate neighborhood. "We took two-thirds of our graduating class and linked them with experienced officers, and focussed on those areas," Kelly said. "Well, what has happened is that over time we have averaged about a thirty-five-per-cent crime reduction in impact zones."

For years, experts have maintained that the incidence of violent crime is "inelastic" relative to police presence—that people commit serious crimes because of poverty and psychopathology and cultural dysfunction, along with spontaneous motives and opportunities. The presence of a few extra officers down the block, it was thought, wouldn't make much difference. But the N.Y.P.D. experience suggests otherwise. More police means that some crimes are prevented, others are more easily solved, and still others are displaced—pushed out of the troubled neighborhood—which Kelly says is a good thing, because it disrupts the patterns and practices and social networks that serve as the basis for lawbreaking. In other words, the relation between New York City (a category) and criminality (a trait) is unstable, and this kind of instability is another way in which our generalizations can be derailed.

Why, for instance, is it a useful rule of thumb that Kenyans are good distance runners? It's not just that it's statistically supportable today. It's that it has been true for almost half a century, and that in Kenya the tradition of distance running is sufficiently rooted that something cataclysmic would have to happen to dislodge it. By contrast, the generalization that New York City is a crime-ridden place was once true and now, manifestly, isn't. People who moved to sunny retirement communities like Port St. Lucie because they thought they were much safer than New York are suddenly in the position of having made the wrong bet.

The instability issue is a problem for profiling in law enforcement as well. The law professor David Cole once tallied up some of the traits that Drug Enforcement Administration agents have used over the years in making generalizations about suspected smugglers. Here is a sample:

Arrived late at night; arrived early in the morning; arrived in afternoon; one of the first to deplane; one of the last to deplane; deplaned in the middle; purchased ticket at the airport; made reservation on short notice; bought coach ticket; bought first-class ticket; used one-way ticket; used round-trip ticket; paid for ticket with cash; paid for ticket with small denomination currency; paid for ticket with large denomination currency; made local telephone calls after deplaning; made long distance telephone call after deplaning; pretended to make telephone call; traveled from New York to Los Angeles; traveled to Houston; carried no luggage; carried brand-new luggage; carried a small bag; carried a medium-sized bag; carried two bulky garment bags; carried two heavy suitcases; carried four pieces of luggage; overly protective of luggage; disassociated self from luggage; traveled alone; traveled with a companion; acted too nervous; acted too calm; made eye contact with officer; avoided making eye contact with officer; wore expensive clothing and jewelry; dressed casually; went to restroom after deplaning; walked rapidly through airport; walked slowly through airport; walked aimlessly through airport; left airport by taxi; left airport by limousine; left airport by private car; left airport by hotel courtesy van.

Some of these reasons for suspicion are plainly absurd, suggesting that there's no particular rationale to the generalizations used by D.E.A. agents in stopping suspected drug smugglers. A way of making sense of the list, though, is to think of it as a catalogue of unstable traits. Smugglers may once have tended to buy one-way tickets in cash and carry two bulky suitcases. But they don't have to. They can easily switch to round-trip tickets bought with a credit card, or a single carry-on bag, without losing their capacity to smuggle. There's a second kind of instability here as well. Maybe the reason some of them switched from one-way tickets and two bulky suitcases was that law enforcement got wise to those habits, so the smugglers did the equivalent of what the jihadis seemed to have done in London, when they switched to East Africans because the scrutiny of young Arab and Pakistani men grew too intense. It doesn't work to generalize about a relationship between a category and a trait when that relationship isn't stable—or when the act of generalizing may itself change the basis of the generalization.

Before Kelly became the New York police commissioner, he served as the head of the U.S. Customs Service, and while he was there he overhauled the criteria that border-control officers use to identify and search suspected smugglers. There had been a list of forty-three suspicious traits. He replaced it with a list of six broad criteria. Is there something suspicious about their physical appearance? Are they nervous? Is there specific intelligence targeting this person? Does the drug-sniffing dog raise an alarm? Is there something amiss in their paperwork or explanations? Has contraband been found that implicates this person?

You'll find nothing here about race or gender or ethnicity, and nothing here about expensive jewelry or deplaning at the middle or the end, or walking briskly or walking aimlessly. Kelly removed all the unstable generalizations, forcing customs officers to make generalizations about things that don't change from one day or one month to the next. Some percentage of smugglers will always be nervous, will always get their story wrong, and will always be caught by the dogs. That's why those kinds of inferences are more reliable than the ones based on whether smugglers are white or black, or carry one bag or two. After Kelly's reforms, the number of searches conducted by the Customs Service dropped by about seventy-five per cent, but the number of successful seizures improved by twenty-five per cent. The officers went from making fairly lousy decisions about smugglers to making pretty good ones. "We made them more efficient and more effective at what they were doing," Kelly said.

5.

Does the notion of a pit-bull menace rest on a stable or an unstable generalization? The best data we have on breed dangerousness are fatal dog bites, which serve as a useful indicator of just how much havoc certain kinds of dogs are causing. Between the late nineteen-seventies and the late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by five pit bulls, three mixed breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull mix—but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn't change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with pit bulls, it's not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

"I've seen virtually every breed involved in fatalities, including Pomeranians and everything else, except a beagle or a basset hound," Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the A.S.P.C.A. and one of the country's leading dogbite experts, told me. "And there's always one or two deaths attributable to malamutes or huskies, although you never hear people clamoring for a ban on those breeds. When I first started looking at fatal dog attacks, they largely involved dogs like German shepherds and shepherd mixes and St. Bernards—which is probably why Stephen King chose to make Cujo a St. Bernard, not a pit bull. I haven't seen a fatality involving a Doberman for decades, whereas in the nineteen-seventies they were quite common. If you wanted a mean dog, back then, you got a Doberman. I don't think I even saw my first pit-bull case until the middle to late nineteen-eighties, and I didn't start seeing Rottweilers until I'd already looked at a few hundred fatal dog attacks. Now those dogs make up the preponderance of fatalities. The point is that it changes over time. It's a reflection of what the dog of choice is among people who want to own an aggressive dog."

There is no shortage of more stable generalizations about dangerous dogs, though. A 1991 study in Denver, for example, compared a hundred and seventy-eight dogs with a history of biting people with a random sample of a hundred and seventy-eight dogs with no history of biting. The breeds were scattered: German shepherds, Akitas, and Chow Chows were among those most heavily represented. (There were no pit bulls among the biting dogs in the study, because Denver banned pit bulls in 1989.) But a number of other, more stable factors stand out. The biters were 6.2 times as likely to be male than female, and 2.6 times as likely to be intact than neutered. The Denver study also found that biters were 2.8 times as likely to be chained as unchained. "About twenty per cent of the dogs involved in fatalities were chained at the time, and had a history of long-term chaining," Lockwood said. "Now, are they chained because they are aggressive or aggressive because they are chained? It's a bit of both. These are animals that have not had an opportunity to become socialized to people. They don't necessarily even know that children are small human beings. They tend to see them as prey."

In many cases, vicious dogs are hungry or in need of medical attention. Often, the dogs had a history of aggressive incidents, and, overwhelmingly, dog-bite victims were children (particularly small boys) who were physically vulnerable to attack and may also have unwittingly done things to provoke the dog, like teasing it, or bothering it while it was eating. The strongest connection of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog. The junk-yard German shepherd—which looks as if it would rip your throat out—and the German-shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions.

"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."

6.

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.

Diane Mufson: Reputation shows pit bulls don't make good family pets

2009-02-24T14:59:00.002-05:00

It's faulty journalism such as this, even though it is based on opinion of the author, is just the thing that fuels the bad reputation of the Pit bull breeds. Irresponsible opinions without doing proper research on the topic is how the general public get brainwashed instead of informed properly. This is exactly why the Pit bull breeds continue to fear those that read articles like this.

Diane Mufson: Reputation shows pit bulls don't make good family pets
The Herald-Dispatch

Pit bulls, which may be known for aggressive behavior or viciousness, are under laws restricting ownership in Britain, Ontario and Miami-Dade County in Florida. Because of this, they may not make the ideal family pet.

February 18, 2009 @ 07:55 PM
The Herald-Dispatch

The selection of a dog as a family pet has been in the news lately as President Obama's family tries to choose the right pup for the Obama girls. It's clear from their deliberations and a variety of news reports that all breeds of dogs are not equally good as family pets.

Having owned three wonderful dogs of different breeds (two were recognizable breeds) and being a frequent admirer of dogs and puppies, I believe it's obvious that despite the all important training and care, the breed of a dog has much to do with the animal's demeanor.

No breed or mix of breeds can be guaranteed as ideal for a family pet, but some are clearly better than others. Yet some folks who want a family pet insist that a pit bull or other breed known for aggressive behavior or viciousness is a fine choice for a home with young children. It isn't.

While some carefully raised pit bulls may grow up to be good pets, reports of pit bulls attacking people, especially young children and infants, occur often enough to be a valid concern around the globe. Some countries and metropolitan areas forbid pit bulls and similar breeds to reside in their community.

Breed-specific legislation causes many pit bull lovers grief because they insist that pit bulls are rarely dangerous. While there are some well-trained pit bulls that may be safe for adults who know how to handle them, there must be some reason why Britain, Ontario, Miami-Dade County in Florida and other communities restrict ownership of this breed. Australia, Germany, Israel and New Zealand prohibit importing pit bulls.

In recent months, this newspaper reported that a young girl in Ironton was mauled by the family's pit bull. And in 2005, a 2-year-old Huntington girl was violently and fatally attacked by the same breed of dog.

Pit bulls sometimes receive unusual publicity. In December 2008, The Herald-Dispatch ran an Associated Press story about a burlesque dancer that said, "It's no accident that her fellow burlesque dancers and pinup models feel a kinship with pit bulls. 'They're people who chose to be on the outside and do it their way, who are used to being the underdog.' "

Dogs need to be chosen on more than just an emotional identity.

The tendency for pit bulls to become vicious has been observed in varying situations. And while there must be some golden labrador, beagle or other generally child-friendly breed to show similar behaviors, these episodes appear rare. Many groups that compare dogs place pit bulls No. 1 on the most dangerous breed list.

One of the hallmarks of pit bulls is that when they bite, they hold on to the object they have sunk their teeth into, making it very difficult to extricate a person, but especially a child, from their jaws. No doubt that reputation led to the phrase "a pit bull with lipstick" during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Having a dog in the family can be a wonderful experience, but the breed or breeds should be carefully chosen. Pit bulls are not the ideal animal for families with children or those who live close to or interact frequently with young people. Evidence of past attacks and restrictions on owning pit bulls in various communities and countries attests to widespread problems with this breed.

Diane W. Mufson is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Huntington. She is a former citizen member of The Herald-Dispatch editorial board and a regular contributor to the Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Her e-mail is dwmufson@comcast.net.

Dog invades home through cat door

2009-02-18T14:44:00.004-05:00

There are questions going through my brain that just doesn't make sence with this story in The Sault Star.

First of all, what is a Pit bull type dog?

Secondy, how does a dog the size of a Pit bull breed manage to fit through a cat door? I used one many years ago so the cats could eat in peace, plus it had a large area for the litter boxes in there too. We had a pup and even the pup was too large to fit through it. Purhaps a minature poodle or a small breed dog could fit, but certainly not anything larger.

What about the drunken man carrying a leash? Was he not interviewed?

It goes on to say how badly the cat was hurt, but kennel costs for keeping the cat overnight, plus the examination costs alone are sizable. The cat was released the next day. Was this then an exaggeration by the reporter?

The mother got bit on the hand. If she put her hand out to stop the chase, I wouldn't doubt that she did get bit or if she tried to grab the dog.

The little girl had minor scratches. Was she scratched by the dog or the cat as I'm sure she paniced and tried to save her cat, but that's just my own theory. I couldn't image her running after a strange dog, nor would her mother allow it, you wouldn't think.

Taking all this into consideration, does any of this make sense to you either?

Dog invades home through cat door
OWEN SOUND, Ont. (CP)

A dog that sneaked into a home through a cat door bit a woman on the hand and attacked the family's pet feline before it was eventually forced into a bathroom and locked inside.

The incident occurred when a mother and her adult daughter were asleep at their home in Rockford, Ont., just south of Owen Sound.

The pit bull-type dog inflicted minor injuries on the daughter, while the cat was more seriously hurt, Ontario Provincial Police Const. Steve Starr said Monday.

"The cat had to be kept overnight at the vet's office, and apparently the bill for its care is quite sizable,'' Starr said.

After the women managed to lock the dog inside the bathroom, they called police. "That's where it was when the officers arrived on scene,'' Starr said.

Police later came across a severely intoxicated man carrying a leash near the home, but there was no word on whether any charges would be laid. Starr said there has been an odd run of animal occurrences in the area in the last two weeks.

"First we had a llama escape; it still hasn't been found,'' he said. "Then we had someone steal a bunch of show rabbits. Now this.''

HAPPY VALENTINES

2009-02-14T03:56:00.003-05:00

Mayor's husband faces multiple charges after two vehicle collisions

2009-02-02T11:00:00.007-05:00

London's Major Anne Marie DeCicco-Best is very outspoken when it comes to woman abuse. I contacted her through email to tell her my story and how a very special dog named Shasta gave me back my life again and how. I then told her Shasta was one of the Pit bull breeds banned here in Ontario.

I was trying to explain that it's not the breed, but the owners of dogs that should be responsible and London's by-law was too severe that not only are they following the provincial law exactly, but have also included that you may NOT bring your Pit bull breed into London, Ontario unless you purchase a London Pit bull license for your visit.

If you are unfamiliar with this bylaw, ACC can take your dog from you and we all know what happens to the Bullie breeds once they go into ACC. Basically, your dog now has a life sentence on it and you can be fined up to $10,000 and/or up to 6 months in jail.

Once the major heard I had an APBT, she replied in a very cold manner that she was very sorry to hear about my past and glad that I had moved forward, but her views on Pit bulls were still the same.

Well Mrs. DeCicco-Best, more drunk drivers kill people than all dogs breeds put together, let alone the Pit bull breeds. Why is there not a ban on drunk drivers? Why are you not responsible for your husbands actions, just as owners of the Pit bull breeds are fully responsible that the Pit bull breeds are not entitled to make any mistakes as other breeds of dogs are?

Why did your husband Tim not have to spend the night in the drunk tank like other drunken people brought into custody? How did he get the privilege to be released until his hearing? Does City Hall pull strings for their own, but not for the rest of London's citizens and who ARE the council staff suppose to be working for? If your answer isn't for the citizens of London, you still aren't getting it.

I had to fight you, City Hall and ACC just to have Shasta recognized as a certified service dog in London for a couple of years even after she was legally certified.

You may be humiliated for your husbands actions and I'm sure strings will be pulled so your name and his will be pulled out of the muck very soon. You and the rest of London's staffers put my mind, body and health into complete stress and pain while I had to fight you for something that proved was already mine.

I hope MAD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) rake you and Tim over the coals just as you did me and you both pay the price severely.

To see this article and responses you will find them in LondonTopic.ca

Mayor's husband faces multiple charges after two vehicle collisions
LondonTopic.ca
Febuary 2, 2009

The husband of London Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best is facing several charges after police say the SUV he was driving was involved in two collisions near Dorchester, Saturday (Jan. 31).

Timothy Best, 47, who married London's mayor in 2006 and is the owner of the downtown London establishment Friday Knight Lights, has been charged with failure to remain at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and two related charges.

At around 7 p.m., Middlesex OPP received reports of a Chevrolet Avalanche involved in not one, but two collisions: the first on Highway 401 near Putnam Road and the second on Dorchester Road.

The 40-year-old female driver of the first vehicle struck was transported to hospital with what police described as non life-threatening injuries. No other injuries occurred as a result of the collisions.

Police said the SUV was traveling west on the 401 when it struck a vehicle and continued driving, fleeing the scene.

Residents in the area followed the fleeing SUV and watched as it struck a second vehicle on Dorchester Road, police said.

The driver exited the vehicle and proceeded to flee on foot, but was tracked by police and arrested without incident. One officer suffered minor injuries during the pursuit, police said.

Best was released from custody and is scheduled to appear in a London court on March 24.

January 22nd Update with Supreme Court... on home stretch... please help and cross post!

2009-01-13T06:18:00.004-05:00

January 22nd UPDATE:

From the CKC website:

We've raised $61,715 to date with only $5,285 to go!

We've got 10 days left and with your generous help and support, we can make it happen.
We're so close and a big thank you to all that have donated to bring us to this point.

If you can find it in your hearts and wallets to get us through our final amount, you will be one of the many that has made our fight in court possible.

Supreme Court.. on the home stretch.. please help and cross post!

ALERT:

The constitutional challenge to represent the collective, national interest of responsible dog owners, is in dire straits.

We are $67,000 short of being able to get our voices heard in Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court.

We have been granted an extension to come up with this amount,but just till the end of January 2009.

BIG BROTHER ,DAVID AND GOLIATH On-SCARIO ( AKA Ontario, Canada ) has flagrantly wasted tax payers dollars to act as Goliath against our David ( Banned Aid Coalition ) to ban any "substantially similar" dogs to the banned pure bred dogs, Am Staffs,Staffie Bulls and AM.PBT.

NOW WHO IS THE BULLY?

Over 4000 dogs dead, yes even puppies folks.

In essence, the Ontario government has taken over our Pedigree Act and has decided what breeds and mixes thereof will live, drive through or visit within its boundaries. It simply doesn't matter whether you like the bully dogs. It is now a matter of sending a message to government we are no longer willing to allow politicians to sacrifice the lives of innocent dogs.

DOGS for DOLLARS :

IS YOUR DOG WORTH A DOLLAR? ONE DOLLAR, A LOONY TO FIGHT THE LOONS IN GOVERNMENT !

PAY PAL. Please go to http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/ and click on the "Donate!" link for the Pay Pal tool.

You can also make an online payment from your financial institution's website by sending a bill payment to
treasurer@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org

Send cheques or money orders directly to Mr Ruby at the following address,
c/o BANNED AID LEGAL CHALLENGE FUND
Ruby & Edwardh
11 Prince Arthur Ave.
Toronto, Ont.M5R 1B2
416 964 9664

On behalf of the BANNED AID COALITION----- THANK YOU !

Animals in Canada need your help more than ever!

2008-12-18T00:33:00.003-05:00

Animals in Canada need your help more than ever!

Many of you may have signed previous Animal Cruelty Petitions and may remember our last Canada wide Stop Animal Cruelty C-373 Petition presented to Parliament which garnered 111,896 sig’s!

To date, well over 150,000 sig’s have been gathered and yet the Gov’t continues to ignore our wishes!

C-373 had the support of ALL NDP, most LIB’s, Bloc and Green. Only the Conservatives went against what in recent polls approx 90% of Cdns support and have been asking for, effective animal cruelty legislation!

After many previous letters to constituents stating the opposite, the Conserv ALL voted for useless S-203 which we asked them NOT to support in lieu of effective C-373.

With our new Govt about to get back to work, it’s more important now than ever to let them know we’re not settling for a placebo Bill like S-203 and that we will cont to fight for effective legislation based on C-373!

Again we were so close to passing these much needed changes after more than a century of wasted time and debates! Everytime an election is called or Parliament is prorogued, ALL Bills are dropped and we have no choice but to start over!

Please know that we and animals all across Canada appreciate your support on past petitions, but once again due these events in our Govt we need your help!

Thousands more animals have recently suffered due to Parliaments inaction, when will it be enough!? Our voices have to be louder than ever to get these much needed changes so please help how you can!

Please Print this NEW Petition! http://stopanimalcrueltyincanada.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/2009-animal-cruelty-petition2.pdf

Gather as many sig’s as you can and return to address on bottom by June 30/09! THANK YOU!

Can’t sign the paper petition? Then try the online version found here..
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stopanimalcrueltyincanada

PLEASE NOTE! Paper and ink petitions are way more effective and carry much more weight in the House of Commons! The online petition is in support of the legal paper petition so that our animal friends from around the world can also have their voices heard!

Canadian residents over 18, please be sure to print, sign and send in paper petition as well if at all possible!

Don't forget to write, call or email your MP! More info here.. http://stopanimalcrueltyincanada.wordpress.com/about/

Letters to editors help also and are a great way to spread awareness! More info can be seen here..

Wordpress- Stop Animal Cruelty in Canada http://stopanimalcrueltyincanada.wordpress.com/

Facebook group- Stop Animal Cruelty in Canada with Bill C-373 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2559701041

Facebook cause- Stop animal cruelty in Canada with effective legislation!http://apps.facebook.com/causes/view_cause/8495?h=pln&recruiter_id=2216305

Please help protect animals in Canada from neglect and abuse by taking a moment to have your voices heard!

Please help spread the word and pass this message and petition/rally info on! We need all your support to get this done! Thanx for supporting effective animal cruelty legislation in Canada!

Daisy-Duke, dog who was beaten with a shovel, had legs and mouth duct-taped, put in a bag, tied 2 a rope, towed behind vehicle and left for dead before she was finally found and euthanized.

Please attend IMPORTANT animal cruelty protest in Didsbury- Wed Dec 17th!!

REMINDER! There is a VERY IMPORTANT RALLY happening on Dec 17th!
9:30am - 12:00pm
Didsbury Courthouse
1611 - 15 Ave
Didsbury, AB

This is the last and final protest against Haskett! This case has been going on for almost 2 1/2 yrs and Haskett will finally be sentenced. His friend previously received probation and a spank for his part in Daisy-Duke's death.

She was beaten with a shovel, had legs and mouth duct-taped, put in a bag, tied to a rope and towed around Didsbury until she fell off. A young girl found her, called the vet, and she was immediately euthanized.

Haskett better get the max for this horrific death of the family dog, which sadly, will probably be a slap.

We need EVERYONE to attend if possible on Wed Dec 17th in Didsbury!

We need to NOT let this dog be forgotten and show why we need these laws in place! If people were actually punished for these terrible acts, perhaps they would be deterred, esp before they start on human crimes!

It's goin to be cold, about -15, so dress warm and bring all your friends who agree that animal cruelty needs to be prevented w effective legislation! Please attend this very important last court date and have your voices heard! We need to make sure the Govt doesnt forget again- why we need animal cruelty laws that work!!

This will also be the official NEW petition launch, a variety of animal groups will be there and we hope you are too!! We need a big rally to help spread awareness on the issue to the public, show the Govt we're not giving up even though they do, and at the same time, hopefully media will help us get the word out about the new petition, update people on what happened with the last Canada wide one and why we need your help again!!

THANK YOU ALL FOR CARING AND HAVING YOUR VOICES HEARD FOR ANIMALS!

Media please contact:

Heather McClure Anderson (D.A.I.S.Y. Foundation) 403-475-0120 daisybillc373@shaw.ca

Tamara Chaney (Stop Animal Cruelty w C-373 Daisy-Duke Petition Initiator) 403-335-8152 orcagirl77@yahoo.ca

Paula James (Stop Animal Cruelty in Canada with Bill C-373/effective legislation) 403-928-5369 paulajames2000@hotmail.com

If Looks Could Kill

2008-12-05T14:01:00.004-05:00

I spoke to a woman only the other day that has owned a Boxer X for 7 years. This year ACC changed her dogs breed to Pit bull.

Suddenly she had to get her dog micro chipped with proof, show original proof of rabies, original spay receipt, 2 pictures to show markings of her dog, fill out the inquiry form with description, age, province or non-province born, etc. and appear in person with all this proof before being allowed a Pit bull license, which is a higher rate than other dogs.

She now has to muzzle and leash her dog at all times in public and abide by the Pit bull Law. To us, the dog looks like a Boxer, but ACC says other wise and can change your dogs breed as easily as that and at any time.

With Canada fallen on hard times and in turmoil, the cities have to get their money wherever possible. After all, the Ontario Liberal government has cities and towns flipping the bill for all the expenses and burdons it takes to enforce the ban in their cities.

I expect ACC in Ontario will be changing many dogs breeds for the extra money the licences bring in. I also wonder if a younger mutt gets changed to Pit bull, does it become illegal and put to death because of age?

She (the dogs owner) is now bound under the law that if her dog does anything against the law or by hear say, she can pay a fine up to $10,000 and/or up to 6 months in jail and her dog killed.

If you own a purebred, you better have the proper papers to prove it, otherwise your dog is in danger too no matter at how hard you argue. That would be the majority of pet store dogs which many aren't aware come from puppy mills at extraordinary prices. Yes! Your amazing, hilarious purebred Jack Russel Terrier that you paid $700 for, but no papers to prove it, could turn out to be a Pit bull.

Of course, just like the Pit bulls, parliament might decide to ban all dogs 20 pounds or more. Yes, that has also been suggested in council.

Are you wondering now about your own dog or someone you know? Read the post.

If Looks Could Kill
*crosspost*

Remember the old saying, "If Looks Could Kill"?

These days in Ontario, they can and do.

Do you own a short-coated dog with a boxy snout?

Is he brindle, white, brown or red?

Then you may very well own an Ontario "pit bull".

Everything from Boston Terriers to Great Danes, purebred or mixed, have been identified by those enforcing the Dog Owners Liability Act (DOLA) as "pit bulls".

Due to the anxiety and confusion this law has created, many national breed clubs have asked for official exemptions from Ontario's Attorney General. In fact, people are writing to the Attorney General before they get a dog to make sure they are making a safe choice.

For owners of mixed breed dogs (in other words, most people), the confusion means that they are unaware of how this ban directly affects them. After all, there is no valid method to test the breeding of a mix and there is nothing the law that says how you prove your dog is not a "pit bull" - yet the onus is on you, the dog owner, to do just that.

The latest decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal states that if even a tiny risk exists, it is the responsibility of government to regulate it by whatever means possible - even if this means exterminating it.

In restoring the law to its original form, the Justices told all Canadians that despite credible research and evidence proving otherwise, the mythology surrounding the "pit bull" is taken at face value by our courts.

In other words, uneducated opinions, gossip and hearsay from any source (such as news reports) can be used to prove anything - and worse, such flimsy evidence can influence our rights and freedoms in all aspects of our lives.

Do you now see that this not just about dogs anymore?

In the words of Clayton Ruby,"According to the Court of Appeal, so long as the government puts forth some evidence in support of its legislative decision, regardless of its credibility, reliability or value, it cannot lose. And it's not just about dogs anymore. This ruling, if left unchallenged, will become case law and as such can be applied to anything, from dogs to donkeys."

Ultimately this means that the life of every dog and every breed is just a pen stroke away from extinction. All it will take is a little bad press.

We refuse to quit. We must take this case to the Supreme Court of Canada so that dog (and all property) owners can take back control of their and their dogs' lives.

But we have a problem...In order to move forward, significant financial obligations must be met. The Banned Aid Coalition must raise $100,000.00 within two weeks in order to pay for the outstanding costs to date and to finalize our application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The DLCC and Banned Aid Coalition firmly believe in the importance of this cause. We are prepared to carry this burden farther but we need your help. Don't sit this one out because the future of dog ownership, if not all property ownership, is what's at stake.

Many have stepped up to help us along the way but we are again in a crunch for time and money. Please join dog owners and others from across our great country in standing up for fair and equal treatment for all.

Most of all, stand up for your best and only friend, your beautiful dog. He is depending on your help during his darkest hour.

Thanks to everyone for your ongoing support. Together, we can win.

Please donate today - every dollar counts.

"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

There are several ways you can donate.

You can mail your cheque payable to the DLCC to:
Cathy Prothro
351 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
B2Y 3S4
Canada

PAY PAL. Please go to http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org and click on the "Donate!" link for the Pay Pal tool.

For your convenience you can deposit from any bank directly into the Banned Aid Legal Fund by depositing to:
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
Penhorn Mall,Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Account 00513 010 1526839

You can also make an online payment from your financial institution's website by sending a bill payment to treasurer@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org

Send cheques or money orders directly to Mr Ruby at the following address,
c/o BANNED AID LEGAL CHALLENGE FUND
Ruby & Edwardh
11 Prince Arthur Ave.
Toronto, Ont.
M5R1B2
416 964 9664

*If you aren't a resident of Canada and would like to help, Pay Pal is set up for all over the world. Thank you!*
* 1. added by Conners

Little Litter Dog: Pit Bull Doing Its Part to Keep City Clean

2008-12-04T13:16:00.004-05:00

All to often many articles in the media about the Pit bull breeds are negative, even to the extreme of claiming a breed as Pit bull when it's not.

Well, this article is one of the most positive and humourous articles I've ever read.

People will ask us Bullie owners why a Pit bull? You could go on for hours how loyal, intelligent and comical they are and all they ask of us is for love. A bullie will out do itself to meet with your approval, laughter and hug.

It's for this very reason we want people who only know what the media has brainwashed them with to see for themselves with an open mind why we love our dogs so much and why we fight so hard to get the truth out to them.

I received an email from one of my friends that told me her dog Emma, a bullie was in the news and no, not in a bad way. It was in November, but I'd like to share it with you. This article in the WEAU News.

Little Litter Dog: Pit Bull Doing Its Part to Keep City Clean
Nov 26, 2008
Reporter: Mary Rinzel with Photographer Jeff Ralph
Email Address: mary.rinzel@weau.com

Video: Little Litter Dog

You sometimes can't help but attract attention if you're a dog...

"No, she doesn't get ice cream if she does a good job," Anne Vaini tells the three kiddos clustered around her dog, Emma.

But when you're a dog that picks up litter from the sidewalk, runs to the nearest garbage can and drops it in, you're pretty much guaranteed instant fame.

"I just wondered what it was doing,” says Justin Webb, the owner of Midwest Tattoo on Water Street. “I’d just see it walk up and down the street and pick up trash."

"The first reaction is always 'oh my gosh! Did I just see that?' Yeah, you did. She does that and puts it in there by herself," Vaini tells us laughing.

You're best bet to catch Anne and Emma walking Water Street: Friday or Saturday nights when there's more people and more litter.

"When the students came back, I noticed the street was looking really trashy and really dirty,” Anne tells us. “I though 'hey, I have a dog that can pick things up and put it in the trash cans.’ I thought it'd be good training.”

Vaini’s hope: That Emma will one day leave her trash tasks to help someone in a wheelchair.

"I love it because a lot of people think American pit bull terriers can't be trained and I can show them very quickly, without having to pull their leg or tell them that whole story that 'yeah, it's a dog and it can be trained."

And trained well. Emma was a little out of practice after a recent surgery. But, after a couple seconds of prodding she picked right up on her litter picking skills; much to the delight of the Water Street faithful.

"At least somebody is picking up the trash," laughs Webb. “There's a lot of it left here at night. Maybe we can get some more dogs down here picking up the trash." But, it's not all work for the little litter lady....

"Emma is absolutely a love bug. She's always ready to give kisses," Anne says cuddling her pup.

Making Emma one itty bitty pit bull with an extra large heart.

If you'd like to get in touch with Anne about training, we have a link to her Canine Command website below. It’s under Related Links.

Related Links
Canine Command

Health Dept. looking for white, tan pit bull

2008-11-23T00:41:00.003-05:00

This was in the Mansfield News Journal. I wonder if the woman knows her breeds of dogs, or is she just assuming it's a Pit bull...or by discribing it, did the Health Department come to this conclusion? After all, if it bit, it must be a Pit bull. Other dogs don't seem to bite.

Health Dept. looking for white, tan pit bull

The Mansfield/Ontario/ Richland County Health Department is looking for a dog who bit a 26-year-old woman. The white and tan pit bull was last seen Nov. 15 near Circle K on Lexington Avenue.

Report any dog that fits this description to the health department at 419-774-4500. If it is observed running loose, it is best to call the dog pound at 419-774-5892. Do not attempt to restrain it.

Pit Bulls Banned in Ontario

2008-11-22T01:42:00.003-05:00

The only ones that don't get it is the Ontario Liberal Party.

Pit Bulls Banned in Ontario
October 26, 2008

A spokesperson with an animal shelter in St. John's doesn't feel it is necessary to enact dog specific bans.

This after an Ontario court recently upheld its ban on pit bulls after the law was challenged for being unconstitutional.

St. John's SPCA Executive Director Debbie Powers says a ban on pit bulls, or any other breed, is placing the blame on the animal, and not the owner.

Ontario is the only province to ban the breeding, selling or importing of the Pit bull class of dog.

The city of Winnipeg has a similar law.

Rambo still out as court upholds pit bull ban

2008-11-22T01:03:00.004-05:00

The biggest crime coming from the Liberal government in OnScario is not only murdering innocent dogs (of all breeds of dogs they label as Pit bulls), but the lack of socialation which is very important to raising friendly dogs.

Our new Ontario, Attorney General Chris Bentley is copy catting the exact words that all Liberal voice. Do they not have opinions of their own or do they all use the exact wording as what Michael Bryant says.

Ontario has turned into a dictatorship province and no longer for the people. Their primary function is to ban as much as possible rather than looking for working solutions.

We and the other parties gave them a workable solution, but they hold tight to their faulty reasoning and won't bundge from it. It's a matter of control and power, not fairness and certainly not what 70% of what Ontarians want.

Rambo still out as court upholds pit bull ban
By: Julia Le
October 25, 2008

Rambo won't be returning from Nova Scotia to his former Mississauga home any time soon.

Rambo the pit bull-cross had to leave the province or face euthanasia under the Ontario pit bull ban. An appeal court has upheld the ban.

In a ruling yesterday, an appeal court is upholding the provincial ban on pit bull breeds.

Rambo, a 10-month-old pit bull cross, captured the city's attention after being caught running at large last Christmas day. After a court battle to prevent him from being euthanized under the ban, owner Gabriela Nowakowska agreed to ship him to a province that doesn't have the ban.

The Ontario Court of Appeal said the ban on pit bulls, which was enacted in 2005, does not violate any constitutional rights. The judges said the total ban on pit bulls is not 'arbitrary' or 'grossly disproportionate'.

"Pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation," they said in their decision.

Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who challenged the law in March 2007, said it was a "sad day" in Ontario.
In a statement he said these kind, loving, gentle dogs are being killed in the province for no reason.

"The provincial government should focus their efforts and resources on identifying truly dangerous dogs rather than apprehending and killing dogs that pose no threat at all," said Ruby, who is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley however, said he believes upholding the legislation is important in keeping Ontarians safe.

Puppy Mills in Canada and Don't be conned

2008-11-20T23:48:00.003-05:00

The reason I've decided to write on this subject is so many people aren't aware of when they buy from a Pet Shop, in most cases, they are actually supporting the puppy mills and buying years of problem dogs that have been raised in the most unsanitary and dangerous conditions. It's not uncommon for the pup to be sickly and most likely an inner bred pup.

As you and your family each have your share of holding the puppies and a sales clerk approaches you, your heart has melted and perhaps found your favorite of the bunch.

As you ask the price of the pup and the clerk give you a high fetched price, such as $600.00 or $700.00, you ask the breed of the dog. The clerk tells you the breed and right away you are assuming you are buying a purebred pup for that price.

Unknown to you, papers come with purebreds and as the pup grows, suddenly that tiny lap dog that was suppose to stay within a certain size grows way beyond that. You also notice that as the pups looks changes, often it looks more like another breed rather than what the clerk has told you.

By this time though, you and your family have totally fallen in love with the pup and don't want to take it back.

You notice the pup isn't doing well with training, so you take it to Puppy Obedience classes, but it can't seem to keep up with the others. You assume you have spoilt the pup so much, that now it's your fault the pup is not trainable or the school is being to hard on them and take them out angry with the trainers. In your mind, they just don't understand how high strung your precious baby is. It isn't used to be to being trained in that manner, because your dog is SPECIAL and it probably is as it's neurotic from the way it was bred.

As much love as your family has shown it all the love a puppy would needs, you find the pup either get aggressive with you and starts to snarl or nip or even aggressive especially to children or infants as well as other dogs and trying to house break the pup is a never end of 'accidents'.

Though you are getting frustrated, you did put a huge investment into the pup and you assume your dog is very high strung because it's a purebred and so now you are making all kinds of excuses why your pup, now a dog isn't growing up well mannered as all your friends dogs are. They are everything from mutts to purebreds too, but not having any of the problems you are. They tell you they are used to being the BOSS in the family and have to hide the dog away when people come over.

When you ask if they socialize their dog, they say they can't because it wants to fight every dog they have contact with, so to avoid the embarrassment, they take their dogs out when no other dogs are around.

In many cases, the neighbours have complained about the constant barking of your dog that is holding you prisoner in your own home because you can't leave your place with it without a scene and if you do, the complaints come in and you find your place a disaster with dog feces, pee and destroyed furniture. Oh, but it loves you so much that it can't bare to be without you, you convince yourself.

Not once do you think your dog has mental problems that think most inner bred dogs do. You're basically a first time owner and you blame all the dogs problems on yourself, after all, with a purebred, the blue blood it comes from must make it need extra care that other dogs don't require.

Do they consider the Dog Shows where purebreds have been trained to strut their stuff and have to stand, walk and prance around the ring under strict scrutiny of judges? Why don't these dogs have the same problems?

As they grow older, they find their beloved has more health problems and they pay out more money on getting the well more than they had paid for them several times over.

Please, before you and your family decide to get a dog, especially first time owners, do your homework prior to making that decision. There are Pet Stores that have cats and dogs that aren't sold in the stores and only displayed there. These animals are usually shelter animals and to be able to adopt them, you go through the Humane Society or Animal Aid Rescue and go through the adoption program to see if you and the animal are right for each other.

They won't cost you $600 or $700 to buy, but they will already have their shots and the fee's for having them fixed are included if too young or already to go.

If you MUST have a purebred, check out your local breeders and ask for their credentials and ask around about them. The reputable ones don't want their names tarnished and they will take care to have you thoroughly checked prior to you even seeing their animals. You will receive papers of their lineage with pedigree papers to go with them.

DON'T BE CONNED!

Puppy Mills in Canada

Dogs at a puppy mill, crowded into cages.

With hundreds of thousands of dogs born into puppy mills each year, Canada has become a haven for the puppy mill industry—and for unimaginable cruelty against our best friends.

It’s all about profit.

A puppy mill is a breeding operation in which puppies are mass-produced in substandard conditions. The goal is to produce as many puppies as possible with minimal cost to—and maximum financial gain for—the operator. The puppy mill industry has grown exponentially in Canada, and it is now a multimillion dollar business in this country.

Puppy mills cannot meet the needs of a dog. These dogs live in insufficient housing that are overcrowded with poor sanitation, and are under-fed and denied proper veterinary care. The majority of the breeding females spend their entire lives in small, filthy cages without exercise, love or human contact. They are bred continually until their tired, worn bodies finally give out and they can no longer produce enough puppies (usually at four to six years of age.) At this point, they are no longer deemed profitable and are simply killed, as are unsold male dogs

While many are located in Quebec, puppy mills operate in many other provinces, from coast to coast in Canada. Notably, at least 90 percent of puppies sold in pet stores in Canada come from puppy mills. Puppy mill pups are advertised in local newspapers and sold through the Internet, at flea markets, or directly from the mill. Generally, visitors are not allowed inside the facility to see the conditions in which the dogs are kept.

Quebec is Canada’s puppy mill centre.

Although they exist all over Canada, a large portion of Canada’s puppy mills can be found in the province of Quebec due to its particularly poor legislation and enforcement surrounding commercial dog breeding operations. The result has been the creation of up to 2200 puppy mills in this province. Half the dogs bred in Quebec are sold outside the province to pet stores and wholesalers across Canada and (until recently) the US. Furthermore, the Quebec government provides very little funding to animal cruelty investigations compared to other provinces.

Breeding Disease and Heartache

Puppy mill breeders allow over-breeding and inbreeding to occur. Most puppies have, or will develop, genetic defects and/or other health problems sometime in their lives as a result of poor breeding practices and unsanitary conditions at the puppy mill. They often have behavioural and temperament problems as well, resulting from a complete lack of socialization with humans or other dogs.

In May 2008, the US government placed a ban on imports from foreign puppy mills for commercial sale. This will likely have a great impact on the puppy mill industry in Canada, since the US has been a major market for this industry up until now.

What We’re Doing

HSI Canada and our US affiliate, the Humane Society of the United States, are fighting puppy mills on several fronts. From conducting investigations, to rescuing dogs from cruel puppy mills, to lobbying for stronger provincial and , we’ve met with some success—but there is a long way to go and we won't stop until Canada’s puppy mills are shut down for good. Join us in the fight—with your help, we will succeed!

Write to your Member of Parliament to ask for better enforcement of laws and increased penalties to stop puppy mills.

What You Can Do

Write to your Member of Parliament to ask for better enforcement of laws and increased penalties to stop puppy mills.
Sign our pledge declaring your support for a national ban on puppy mills and stronger laws for animal protection.
Live in Québec? Write to your provincial representative and Premier Jean Charest to demand better enforcement and funding of the provincial animal welfare law. Then, download and circulate our petition[PDF] addressed to the National Assembly. en français [PDF]
Donate to help end puppy mill cruelty.

Expert Opinion

Resources

Video: Cruelty in Canada

CALLING ALL DOG OWNERS - PLEASE CROSS POST

2008-11-17T21:02:00.003-05:00

CALLING ALL DOG OWNERS - PLEASE CROSS POST

Whereabouts Unknown

Somewhere on the Trans Canada highway between eastern Manitoba and the Ontario border a trek for the homeless has taken a slightly different path.Kerry Pakarinen has walked over 2700 kilometres since July in his cross-Canada trek to raise funds and awareness for the plight of the homeless in Canada.Accompanying him for the entire trip has been his faithful friend, his dog Preacher. Various news articles have described him as a "Mastiff" or "Bullmastiff".

The DLCC is working alongside concerned dog owners and banding together to help Kerry and Preacher in any way they can, including clothes, food, blankets, etc, as the pair enter into the winter season crossing Ontario. Estimates suggest that they will be in that province for at least two months, on their way to Prince Edward Island.

Also of concern to dog owners countrywide are the often draconian anti-dog laws -- some of the worst in the country -- that Kerry and Preacher will encounter during his trek across Ontario.

Both the vague provincial law enacted in 2005 and the bylaws of many cities and towns throughout the province may present a serious risk to both him and his dog. Dog owners would like to be there for him in case he runs into trouble.

We are currently in the process of contacting Kerry, but our best guess is that they will reach the border of Manitoba and Ontario (traveling eastbound) around November 12.

This group will keep people updated on the whereabouts of the adventurers, so that they can be greeted with assistance and kindness throughout their journey.As soon as we contact Kerry, this site will be updated.

PLEASE help us locate this man and his dog.

We have set up a blog and a Facebook group for anyone to send in their information should they be able to locate this team.

We need ALL dog owners to be on the look out. If you can find it in your heart to do up a care package for this couple, please do !

If you find him, please report back by submitting a comment here as soon as possible.

Facebook members can join the group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44885187787

You may also invite friends who are not on Facebook to read the Homeless Preacher blog instead at http://homelesspreacher.blogspot.com/

http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2008/11/the-pits.html

The Preacher's Story
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/535098

For visiting pooch, law is the pits
ANTONIA ZERBISIAS (THE TORONTO STAR)

Kerry Pakarinen's dog Preacher resembles a pit bull, but no one seems sure exactly what breed he is. The duo are on a cross-country awareness walk for the homeless that will take them to Ontario, which bans pit bulls. (Nov. 12, 2008)

Classy canines: Vick dogs featured on wine labels

2008-11-16T18:41:00.003-05:00

What a wonderful way to show how fighting dogs aren't bad even after all the cruelty Michael Vick's dogs endured. Read this absolutely positive article on MSN.com.

Classy canines: Vick dogs featured on wine labels
Georgia, Handsome Dan, Curly and other pit bulls get a shot at fame

Georgia, Handsome Dan, Curly and other pit bulls rescued from Michael Vick's dogfighting operation are getting a shot at fame as stars of a line of boutique red wines.

The Vicktory Dogs Wine Collection features colorful portraits of 22 dogs confiscated from Vick's Bad Newz Kennels that now live at Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in southern Utah.

"As a signature collection, it's through the roof," said Matt Hahn, co-owner of Carivintas Winery, a Southern California company that combines wine selling and philanthropy.

Each bottle includes a portrait of one of the dogs on the label. On the back, instead of a description of the wine, there's a brief story about each four-legged friend.

The pit bulls have been living at Best Friends since January while handlers try to reverse the mental damage done at Vick's 15-acre estate in southeastern Virginia. Vick, a former NFL quarterback, is serving a two-year prison sentence in connection with the dogfighting operation.

Artist Cyrus Mejia, one of the founders of Best Friends, began painting the dogs after they arrived at the sanctuary. Gone in the portraits are any signs of snarling beasts fit for a fight ring. Instead, there are cocked heads, soulful eyes and floppy ears.

"I think he's been able to capture the real personalities of each of the dogs," said John Polis, a Best Friends spokesman.

Hahn and his small winery based in Buellton, Calif., jumped at the chance to use the portraits in creating the Vicktory Dogs collection. He said the goal was to show the dogs in a positive light.

National exposure

Television viewers have come to know many of the dogs through the National Geographic Channel show "DogTown: Saving the Michael Vick Dogs," which chronicles their life after being rescued.

"Everybody has their favorite and people are buying for different reasons," Hahn said. "Some people will drink the wine, some will never open the bottle."

The entire set, including 22 bottles and two others commemorating Best Friends' 25th anniversary, costs $672. The set can also be split and each half sells for $380. Individual bottles go for $40.

Ten percent of each sale goes to Best Friends. The money will be used to oppose dog fighting around the country and to fight laws that target specific dog breeds, Polis said.

Hahn is also hoping the wines, which went on sale last month, are a starting point for people to talk about dogs and protecting animals.

"We really use these things as a way to push the discussion further," Hahn said.

Click for more on the Michael Vick case
Slide show: Vick's dogs get a second chance

For visiting pooch, law is the pits

2008-11-12T17:24:00.005-05:00

Where is Kerry and Preacher? That's the question many Ontarians are asking each other wanting to get hold of Kerry Pakarinen before he crosses into Ontario with his best friend Preacher.

His cause of walking across Canada for the Homeless with Preacher could end in Ontario because of the Pit bull ban that Pakarinen isn't aware of. Preacher is a Bullmastiff, but will ACC see him as that? Not likely and it could become the end of the road for Preacher.

Kerry and Preacher should be arriving in OnScario approximately today or within a day or so. With no phone there is no way to warn him and nobody is aware of his where abouts to warn him of Ontario Pit bull ban law.

Hopefully, concerned citizens will get to him first before the ACC.

This positive and concerned article is in The Toronto Star today.

For visiting pooch, law is the pits

COLIN CORNEAU/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Kerry Pakarinen's dog Preacher resembles a pit bull, but no one seems sure exactly what breed he is. The duo are on a cross-country awareness walk for the homeless that will take them to Ontario, which bans pit bulls.

Nov 12, 2008 04:30 AM
Antonia Zerbisias

Somewhere in eastern Manitoba, Kerry Pakarinen and his best friend are headed for Toronto.

On the Trans-Canada from Vancouver for four months, they're equipped with nothing more than a shopping cart and sleeping bags, raising awareness for the plight of Canada's homeless.

They've been welcomed everywhere and even received favourable coverage in print and on TV.

Unfortunately, the moment they cross into Ontario, one of them could face a death sentence.
That's because Preacher, whom Pakarinen identified to the Calgary Herald as a Bullmastiff, looks to many dog experts, like a pit bull cross.

Which means he isn't welcome here.

In Ontario, ever since 2005, when then-Attorney General Michael Bryant cruelly banned the breed – ignoring the expertise of animal organizations, humane societies and veterinarians – any dog born in the past three years that even vaguely resembles a pit bull is guilty until proven innocent.

For them, it's the needle, or the gas chamber.

No exceptions. Not for people who move to Ontario. Not for military personnel transferred here. Not even for Preacher who is just passing through.

In fact, if bestselling author Cesar Millan, star of the hit show The Dog Whisperer, were to bring his popular Daddy here, the goofy-grinned dog would be dead meat.

So, if even a celebrity dog is doomed, what chance does a homeless mutt like Preacher have?

But Pakarinen might be unaware of this idiotic legislation. It hasn't been mentioned in any of the reports on him and, indeed, reporters who interviewed him in other provinces were equally clueless when I asked.

Trouble is, nobody can reach him because he's on the road, and has no phone.

There's no way to warn him of the danger ahead.

Steve Barker, a dog trainer who last year quit Toronto for B.C. where his champions Brooklynn and Star are safe from the law, says all kinds of family pets – including Labradors and Jack Russell crosses – have "have been targeted by authorities since the ban.''

Which is why he fears for Preacher.

He, and other experts who saw his news photos, believe he "could be anything – boxer/pit bull mix, mastiff mix, pit bull/Shar Pei, Rhodesian Ridgeback mix.

"If (we) can look at this dog and be unsure, then so can anyone else in Ontario, particularly those animal control officers who may have a bias against this type of dog.''

Let's not kid ourselves. There's racism – against humans – involved here.

"Pits'' – and I use the word advisedly since, technically, there is no such breed – are the most common inner-city dog in North America. They don't always get the best of care. Sometimes they're used as four-legged guns, and even tortured to become aggressive.

As a result, even the sweetest pooches get an unfair rap.

Remember U.S. football star Michael Vick and his fighting dogs? After he went to prison last year, most of his pits were adopted, and some even went on to become therapy dogs in hospitals.
Still, every time a pit is involved in an incident, the media are all over it. But, just last week, a boxer almost tore the face off a Vernon, B.C., boy and it barely caused a ripple.

Public hysteria based on fear and ignorance always leads to unnecessary tragedy – whether we're talking witch burnings or breed bans. About 100 years ago, the New York Times fuelled stupid rumours that white Pomeranians – now known as American Eskimos – were the cause of rabies. All were shot or clubbed to death on sight, or seized and drowned in steel cages.

Look how far we've come since then.

Not very.

As for Pakarinen and Preacher, I hope they're not at the end of the road.

Proven Human Health Benefits for Our Animals...and yes, that includes the Pit bull breeds too

2008-11-11T13:01:00.004-05:00

People often as us Bullie owners how we could love our dogs so much. To them, because of the media hype, all they see are vicious killers. This is what we see as responsible owners of our family members, our fur-kids.

It's not our dogs that fight, but us to try to rid the stigma that has badly tarnished their reputations with misconceptions. To fight against Breed Bans that our dogs have done nothing to deserve it.

I chose this article, not because it was talking about dogs in general, but to show those that can not see or feel as we do, why we love and fight so hard for the Bullie breeds and other breeds of dogs that are being banned because of the breed they happen to be and not by their loving personality.

Denver, CO November 11 2008
We Love Our Dogs! Health Benefits from Pets
Proven Human Health Benefits for Our Animals
DENVER, Colorado, November 6, 2008. Did you know there are proven health benefits to owning a dog or pet? “Studies show there are significant physical, mental and emotional benefits for both pets and pet parents,” said Bill Pearce, chief marketing officer for Del Monte Foods. “It is as easy a taking your dog for a walk. Researchers say you’ll walk farther with your pet than you would if you were walking alone, an activity that benefits you both.”

The human-animal bond encourages people to get active, reduce stress, and live healthier together. There are proven health benefits to owning a pet. Reducing stress, lowering blood pressure, strengthening the immune system, and increasing physical activity are all positive benefits of dog and pet ownership. There are hundreds of stories of how pets have changed people’s lives. Owning a dog or pet can make a person fell loved and appreciated. Pets are good role models of how to live each moment to the fullest. Plus, pets are wonderful listeners.

Here are some interesting studies proving the health benefits of owning a dog or pet.

Heart patients with pets are nearly five times more likely to survive a heart attack than those without pets. (Source: Ontario Veterinary Medical Association).
Pets can help us humans combat loneliness, depression, and other emotional problems, even something as common as stress. (Source: Generations, vol. XXV, no. 2, Summer 2001: New York Times, July 24, 2001).
Cholesterol and triglyceride levels are lower in pet owners than non-owners. (Source: Delta Society/Anderson, 1990).

If those are not compelling and convincing reasons to own and love a pet here are some more:

Owning a dog or pet can make a person feel loved and appreciated.
Pets are good role models of how to live each moment to the fullest.
Last but not least, pets are wonderful listeners.

Remember you local shelter has lots of loving animals hoping for an owner just like you!

Debbie Holte is a frequent contributor of articles on our dog's health and happiness forhttp://www.buddybeds.com whose company's mission is to improve the quality of life for our beloved animals.

To learn more about Buddy Beds, orthopedic dog beds or read about the industry and customer accolades Buddy Beds has received, visit the website at http://www.buddybeds.com or email info@buddybeds.com.

Contact Information:

DEBBIE HOLTE
303-744-0424,
875 South Colorado Blvd., Suite 701,
Denver, CO 80246
info@buddybeds.com
http://www.buddybeds.com

Pit bull ban 'sad day' for dog owners

2008-11-10T01:01:00.005-05:00

Letters to the editor In the Owen Sound Sun Times

Pit bull ban 'sad day' for dog owners

In the words of the esteemed lawyer Clayton Ruby, Oct. 24 was a "sad day" indeed for all dog owners and non-dog owners alike in Ontario.

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a move to repeal Ontario's Bill 132, which bans pit bulls in the province. Under the ban, "restricted" pit bulls are those who were born (and living in Ontario) before Nov. 27, 2005. These dogs can be kept by their owners but must be sterilized and muzzled and leashed at all times when in public.

All other dogs of this type must be euthanized, sent out of province or sent to animal testing facilities. It also states that officers (police, municipal bylaw enforcement and animal control) can enter the premises of an owner, without a warrant, and remove the dog if the laws are not being met. Fines include up to $10,000, jail time and/or extermination of the animal.

Due to lack of education, media hype and bias, pit bulls have become the most misunderstood breed in history. I believe a great deal of clarification on both pit bulls and this legislation is necessary in light of the fact that the majority of the general public could not identify a pit bull.

In fact, when this ban was proposed by the attorney general (Michael Bryant) in 2004, he could not identify this breed amongst 26 other breeds. The vast majority, more than 75 per cent, of experts including veterinarians, behaviorists and animal support workers were opposed to this ban.

The term pit bull is often given to three different breeds of dogs: the American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and American Staffordshire terrier.

Bill 132, however, applies to these three breeds as well as any dog that has traits which are "substantially similar" to these breeds. This could therefore apply to boxers, mastiffs, ridge-backs, bull dogs, cane corsos, Rottweilers and numerous other breeds and mixed-breeds that have some similar traits. A stocky mixed breed dog, a Labrador retriever and bulldog combination for example, would fit into this category. A Lab with a short statue and definition of muscle tone would also fit the stereotype.

Furthermore, the burden of proof has now been reversed, leaving it in the hands of the owner, not the court, to prove that their dog is not a pit bull.

The media are largely to blame for the misconceptions surrounding these wonderful dogs. Tales of attacks on humans, by 150-pound pit bulls with locking jaws, circulate throughout the papers on a regular basis. The reality is that the average American Pit Bull Terrier is 65 lbs and there is no physiological structure in any dog's jaw that would allow it to lock.

The fighting history of pit bulls is largely what supports the hype around these dogs. There is, however, a huge difference between animal and human aggression. They were bred to fight other dogs and therefore should and can be socialized and trained with other animals. Aggression towards humans was actually bred out of fighting dogs. Any dog that could not be pulled out of a fight by a human or bathed by the opponents owner (to ensure no poison was placed on the dog's fur) was a bad fighting dog.accurate dog bite statistics. Generally, the larger the population of a dog breed, the more bites there will be by that breed.

Dog bite reports, however, do not even list pit bulls in the top five breeds that bite, yet according to the National Canine Research Council "a fatal dog attack by a non-pit bull is much The reality is that there are no accurate dog bite statistics. Generally, the larger the population of a dog breed, the more bites there will be by that breed.

Dog bite reports, however, do not even list pit bulls in the top five breeds that bite, yet according to the National Canine Research Council "a fatal dog attack by a non-pit bull is much less newsworthy than a non-fatal attack by a pit bull."

It has been estimated that less than one per cent of dog attacks are by pit bulls, and over 90 per cent of these are by unaltered males, however, over 90 per cent of media coverage on dog attacks are about pit bulls. Ignorance is fed by media horror stories in spite of the fact that in dog temperament tests, these three breeds scored an average of 83 per cent, six per cent higher than the overall average of all breeds of 77 per cent.

Breed specific legislation does not result in fewer dog attacks. It is discriminatory, punishes good dogs and their owners, and does nothing to deal with the problem of dogs that have proven to be dangerous. The same people continue to raise, abuse, neglect and own dogs.

The city of Winnipeg noticed a sharp increase in attacks after they put a ban in place, as did the Netherlands who recently reversed their 15-year ban because it was ineffective. The city of Peterborough reported an increase in dog attacks recently.

All dog owners need to be responsible for all dogs. There needs to be stricter punishment for bad dog owners, and more restrictions on ownership, such as mandatory sterilization for non-breeders and training. This bill is very costly and the money would be more effective if it was spent on education, dog bite prevention and dangerous dog controls which do not deal with breed specifics. We should be safe from dog attacks by any breed.

For more information on BSL and pit bulls go to the Owen Sound Animal Shelter website and check out the Hush, Silence the Rumours Campaign ( www.bmts.com/~osas/osas.html).

Other information can be found at the sites below:

www.advocatesfortheunderdog.com/main.html

www.bannedaid.com/www. nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/research.asp

www.goodpooch.com/Media-Briefs/blackpaper/blackpaper.htm

www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1188327

www.atts.org/stats4.html

www.defend-a-bull.com/ontariopitbullban.html

www.torontohumanesociety.com/

Who's the Hero dog that saved the life of a woman and toddler from an attacker

2008-11-09T16:51:00.006-05:00

This is a heart warming story of a stray dog that saves the life of a woman and toddler from an attacker in NBC2 News Online.

I wonder why they never named what kind of dog this gaurdian angel was? No matter, I have the two articles of the same story. Please read on to find out who this hero dog is.

Dog saves woman, toddler from attacker
PORT CHARLOTTE, Fla

A woman says a stray dog appeared out of nowhere and rescued her from a man holding her at knifepoint with her 2-year-old son nearby.

"God only knows what would have happened if he didn't show up," said Angela.

Angela and her son were at the playground at Higgs Park on Higgs Drive in Port Charlotte when a man approached her, put a knife to her side and told her not to scream.

Then, her guardian angel came running out of nowhere to fight off the attacker – at full force – and on all four feet.

"As soon as he growled he just let go of me and took off," she said.

Her savior was a 65 pound stray dog.

Angela grabbed little Jordan and ran for safety with her new hero on her heels.

"Before I could shut my son's car door, he jumped right in and I wasn't going to sit there and try to get him out. I just had to leave before that guy came back," said Angela.

But the courageous canine wasn't going anywhere anytime soon.

"After the cops left, we were waiting for Animal Control and he stood by my door and did not leave my door. He sat there and did not leave," said Angela.

Animal Control came and took the dog to the shelter, leaving Angela and her son safe and sound from her attacker.

"I don't know what his intentions were- I don't know why he did it, but I'm glad that- we call him Angel- I'm glad that Angel showed up because I don't know what would have happened," Angela said.

Angela said she will adopt the dog if its owner doesn't come forward to claim it.

Now read the same article as read in Zoo Too News. It shows what the main stream media are trying to hide.

Stray Pit bull Saves Woman, Child from Attacker
Pet Pulse Staff Reports
November 5, 2008

A dog came out of nowhere and stopped a knife-wielding robber from accosting a mother and her young son on Monday afternoon. (Pet Pulse Illustration by Tim Mattson)

PORT CHARLOTTE, Fla. -- The wandering 65-pound Pit Bull mix might have seemed menacing to some passerby, but one woman will always remember him as her "guardian angel."

The dog, which authorities think is lost and not a stray, successfully thwarted a robbery attack on a mother and her 2-year-old son, who were held at knifepoint Monday afternoon.

The Florida woman, who has been identified by authorities simply as "Angela," was leaving a playground with her toddler son in Port Charlotte when a man approached her in the parking lot with a knife and told her not to make any noise or sudden movements.

Angela didn't have to do either to protect herself and her child -- a dog mysteriously ran to the scene and charged the man, who quickly fled.

"I don't think the dog physically attacked the man, but he went at him and was showing signs of aggression, just baring his teeth and growling and barking. It was clear he was trying to defend this woman," Animal Control Lt. Brian Jones told Pet Pulse.

"I don't know what this man's intentions were, but it is very possible this dog saved her life."

The exceptional part of the story, Jones said, is that the dog had never met or even seen the people it quickly jumped to defend.

"You hear about family dogs protecting their owners, but this dog had nothing to do with this woman or her kid," Jones said. "He was like her guardian angel."

After the alleged thief ran away, Angela quickly placed her son, Jordan, in the car and tried to drive off. Before she could, though, the dog jumped into her backseat, waiting with her for the police and animal control officers to arrive at the scene.

The dog was transported to a local shelter and if his owners don't step forward within five days, Jones said, Angela and her family plan to adopt the savior she named "Angel.

Animal control officers and shelter workers believe Angel is lost, and not a stray, because of his good health, sturdy weight and mild temperament.

"It's funny, that someone's irresponsibility could have saved someone's life," Jones said of Angel's possible owners.

For Angela, it doesn't matter where the dog came from, just that he was there when she needed him most.

"I don't know what his [the thief's] intentions were -- I don't know why he did it, but I'm glad that -- we call him Angel -- I'm glad that Angel showed up because I don't know what would have happened," Angela told NBC2 News.

For a small town with a population of 46,452, animal control officers were kept busy Monday afternoon. Jones says they department also responded to a report about a boa constrictor in a church parking lot.

The snake found its way into a car engine and was able to be removed without being harmed. It took three people to move the massive, seemingly random placed snake.

"It's funny, because we aren't a big place," he said of the Gulf Coast town. "And we can go for four or five months without the media contacting us about a story. It's been a busy week."

Officers from the responding county sheriff's office canvased the area and were unable to locate the suspect described as being in his 20s, tall and dark haired.

How an attempt to help could have meant her life

2008-10-30T14:18:00.003-04:00

Just the other day, Shasta and I heard what sounded like a puppy in distress outside. Before I could even think, Shasta had bolted opened the screen door and ran in the direction of the distress cries. I ran right after her totally afraid as she wasn't muzzled or leashed.

This is not abnormal for the Pit bull breeds to save people and animals. If you look back at some of the Hero Dogs, you will see many that have been honoured and given awards for their bravery. Some even gave their lives to save others. Take a look at Positively Pit Hero's and see for yourself.

Unfortunately, here in Ontario with the Pit bull Ban, Shasta's attempt to rescue a distressed pup could have meant her life. Her bolting out of the door like a bullet could have been perceived as an aggressive act as she ran towards the dogs. Two Jack Russel's were on the landing on the steps outside barking and growling at her. She wasn't interested in them, but sniffing around for the crying pup. I don't think she associated these two dogs from the dog she heard in distress.

I ran after her and the neighbours that were there told me they had never seen me move so fast. I wasn't thinking pain. My only concern was catching Shasta and getting her into the apartment safely. Naturally, I was in tears crying and finding it hard to breath.

The woman appologized to me for the upset and I doubt she even knew the fear I was feeling or why. Everything was quick and like a blur. My neighbours told me Shasta looked confused, but though the other dogs were barking and growling, Shasta was only sniffing. I said, "Yes! She was looking for the distressed pup we heard."

They told me there wasn't a third dog. It was the two dogs that did everything from whimpering, barking and growling. No wonder Shasta was confused as so was I. I asked the woman who kept on appologizing to me to PLEASE take her two dogs in the doors. I just wanted to lead Shasta back home through the back in through the patio and shut ourselves in.

I'm not worried about my neighbours or the woman with the dogs, but some observer from another building that may have taken the full incident out of context. A knock on the door from ACC and Shasta could be taken away from me and held pending upon a trial.

I would literally be a basket case as Shasta is my life, my service dog that helps me with my daily living as well as my other half and fur-baby.

The Liberal government has put responsible dog owners in a state of panic and fear. That's why we MUST win our case against Michael Bryant and the Liberal government's faulty law.

If you look to Calgary, Alberta's you will see a bylaw that makes sense. You'll find much information in the City of Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw.

There hasn't been a knock at my door and I hope I don't get one. Should I have to be this afraid?

In memory of Spanky

2008-10-26T18:52:00.003-04:00

Today has been a very hard and sad day for us. Us, meaning my son, Michael, his fiance, Robin and of course me.

Robin phoned me early in the day. I think it was morning, but what she had to say to me was so unexpected. Spanky, Michael's Pit/Pei hadn't eaten for a couple of days and hadn't drank water for probably as long.

When Michael took him out in the backyard that he loved to play in, he just stood there for awhile before wanting back in to lay down. So unlike him who was full of energy even at the age of 13.

Robin and I took him to our vet's who did a physical with all signs normal except his temperature was low due to dehydration. He also needed a blood test, but my vet said he would fax to the Emergency Clinic as they had all the facility's there, where as it would take days before he got the results back. He didn't charge us for his services and wished us well.

The result of the blood tests showed infections in both the kidney and liver. Had Spanky been a young dog, the results could turn out differently, but because of age, he said it was most probably end of life and extensive exams and medications wouldn't mean Spanky would get better. Possibly it could give him another day or even week.

I try to look into the vet's eyes to see what he would do in this situation. Finally, I'm not sure if it was Robin or myself who asked the question. He had given us three options and the second one would not have helped Spanky. The vet himself told us that and that was to take him home and self medicate him, plus force him to drink water. So we never even considered that.

Robin phoned Michael and he had just gotten home from work, she told him exactly where we were so he could come to make the decision.

Once Michael came he asked more of the 1st option. Him staying for 4 days with IV and given medication. I was glad we got a vet who was sincere and genuinely concerned about Spanky rather than giving us BS. He told him he wanted to be completely straight with us and personally he figured it was end of life for Spank and his kidney and liver showed real signs of wear and tear. As much as he would rather be able to give us a better outcome, he said he couldn't. Spanky had a wonderful life with a lot of love from what he could tell, but it's his time to go.

Michael, as emotional as the two of us told the vet his concern was not money, but for Spanky. He wanted to do the right thing for Spank rather than him having to suffer. To get rid of the infection wasn't going to correct his liver or kidney and asked if he could develope another infection because of them. The vet agreed that the most humane would be the hardest option.

The three of us all wanted to say our good byes to him and be with him until the very end. Robin and I were so happy we didn't put Spanky's muzzle on him today. I was happy that BSL didn't rob Spanker-doodle from us. He was a wonderful boy that gave us years of happy memories and while we grieve today and have a part of our hearts with a vacancy, we have to honour his memory with all the silliness and great times we had together.

Spanky walked in on his own to us and the vet removed the lead. He put a huge comforter folded on the floor and told us to take all the time we needed. This room was for us as long as we needed. We all kissed and patted Spanky, talking to him with tears rolling down our faces. I cried even more as he tried to lick my tears away.

We had unfolded the comforter and it wasn't until he finally went to it and lay down as if to say, it's time now.

Spanky was Michael's very first dog that he got as a young teen. He had never seen a dog put to sleep before, but wanted to be with Spank. The vet explained in detail exactly what he was going to do and what was going on as he went through the process. We all spoke and stroked Spanky the whole time with more tears than you imagine could can come out of you. I've gone through the drill so many times, but it never gets easier as one of your family is leaving you.

Now gone where there lays no more pain for him we only have memories to hang on to. Michael will be reminded the most, especially during times he goes to take him out, or feed him, or simply want to play with him. Knowing he's gone, yet still in disbelief.

Spanky, you gave so many people so much love, but your true love was always Michael. We'll miss you, you Lil' Stinker, but I'll come for you at Rainbow Bridge as we go through heaven's gates together.

Shasta will miss you too, Spanky. She sniffed me when I came home and knows your scent. I believe she knows my tears are for you as she washes them away as you did.

All our love is with you forever.

Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General) (October 24, 2008)

2008-10-25T01:16:00.002-04:00

Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General) (October 24, 2008)

CITATION: Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2008 ONCA 718
DATE: 20081024
DOCKET: C47649
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Laskin, Sharpe and Cronk JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Catherine Cochrane
Applicant (Appellant/ Respondent by way of cross-appeal)
and
Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Ontario, as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent (Respondent/ Appellant by way of cross-appeal)
Clayton C. Ruby and Breese Davies, for the appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal
Robert E. Charney, Michael T. Doi and S. Zachary Green, for the respondent/appellant by way of cross-appeal

Heard: September 15 and 16, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Thea P. Herman of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 27, 2007, with reasons reported at 2007 CanLII 9231 (constitutional challenge) and 2007 CanLII 29973 (remedy).
Sharpe J.A.:

OVERVIEW

[1] The appellant attacks the constitutionality of Ontario’s law banning pit bull dogs. As a violation of the law can result in a penalty of imprisonment, the appellant invokes the right not to be deprived of “life, liberty, and security of the person… except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She argues that a total ban is grossly disproportionate to the risk pit bulls pose to public safety, rendering the law unconstitutionally overbroad, and that the law fails to provide an intelligible definition of pit bulls, rendering the law unconstitutionally vague. She also argues that a provision allowing the Crown to introduce as evidence a veterinarian’s certificate certifying that the dog is a pit bull violates the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, contrary to s. 11(d) of the Charter.

[2] In 2005, in the aftermath of a series of highly publicized pit bull attacks resulting in serious personal injury to several victims, the Ontario Legislature amended the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bull dogs: Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 2. The pit bull provisions allow those who own pit bulls born at the time the amendments came into force or 60 days thereafter to keep their dogs (“restricted pit bulls”). However, owners of restricted pit bulls are required by regulation to have their dogs sterilized and to leash and muzzle their dogs when in public places.

[3] The appellant owns a “Staffordshire terrier cross” that is a restricted pit bull. In support of her overbreadth argument, the appellant submits that the legislature cannot justify the law’s total ban on pit bulls and blanket application to all restricted pit bulls. It is her contention that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that all pit bulls are inherently dangerous and that significantly less drastic measures could satisfy any concern for public safety. In support of her vagueness argument, the appellant contends that the Act fails to provide an adequate definition of pit bulls and that it is impossible to determine whether a dog is or is not caught by the legislation. Finally, the appellant argues that the veterinarian certificate provision denies the right to cross-examine on crucial evidence and creates a mandatory evidentiary burden and thereby violates the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence protected by s. 11(d) of the Charter.

[4] The application judge rejected the overbreadth argument. She accepted the appellant’s vagueness argument but only to a limited extent. The application judge struck down part of the definition of “pit bull” but left the most significant part of the definition intact. She accepted the appellant’s s. 11(d) argument and struck down the veterinarian certificate provision.

[5] The appellant comes to this court asking us to reverse that judgment and to strike down the pit bull provisions as being unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The Attorney General cross-appeals and asks us to restore the definition of “pit bull” as enacted by the legislature. The Attorney General also cross-appeals the order striking down the provision relating to the use of a veterinarian’s certificate.

[6] For the following reasons, I conclude that the pit bull provisions do not violate any right guaranteed by the Charter. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal.

LEGISLATION

[7] The pit bull provisions prohibit the ownership, breeding, importation or transfer of pit bulls. Under regulations promulgated under the Act, individuals who own a restricted pit bull are required to muzzle, leash and sterilize their dogs: Pit Bull Controls, O. Reg. 157/05, ss. 1-2. Under s. 18 of the Act, a person who contravenes any provision of the Act or regulations is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine of up to $10,000, six months imprisonment or both.

[8] Subsection 1(1) of the Act defines the term “pit bull” as follows:
“pit bull” includes,
(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); (“pit-bull”)

[9] Subsection 1(2) provides:
In determining whether a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act, a court may have regard to the breed standards established for Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers or American Pit Bull Terriers by the Canadian Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club or the American Dog Breeders Association.

[10] The provision relating to the admissibility and use of veterinarians’ certificates reads as follows:
19. (1) A document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario stating that a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act is receivable in evidence in a prosecution for an offence under this Act as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a pit bull for the purposes of this Act, without proof of the signature and without proof that the signatory is a member of the College.
(2) No action or other proceeding may be instituted against a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario for providing, in good faith, a document described in subsection (1).
(3) For greater certainty, this section does not remove the onus on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

THE APPLICATION JUDGE’S FINDINGS

[11] There was conflicting evidence before the application judge regarding the dangerousness of pit bulls. The applicant’s evidence was to the effect that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous; that Canadian statistics indicate that pit bulls were involved in relatively few reported bites or attacks; and that most pit bulls pose no threat to public safety. The Attorney General relied on evidence of a series of pit bull attacks that had resulted in serious personal injury, including harm to children; expert evidence that pit bulls tended to be unpredictable in their behaviour and susceptible to unprovoked attacks; and evidence from the United States indicating that pit bulls were involved in a disproportionately high number of serious incidents.

[12] The application judge ruled that the applicant had failed to make out a violation of s. 7 of the Charter on grounds of overbreadth. She held that the legislature could act on a “reasoned apprehension of harm” and that conclusive evidence that pit bulls pose a threat to public safety was not required so long as the legislative response was not “grossly disproportionate” to the legislative objective. She found that it was unnecessary to resolve the conflicting evidence as to the danger posed by pit bulls and that the record established a sufficient body of evidence to permit the legislature to conclude that a total ban on pit bulls was required to protect the public.

[13] With respect to the vagueness challenge, the application judge concluded that, when read as a whole, ss. 1(1)(b)-(e) and (2) provide a sufficient definition to survive s. 7 scrutiny. However, she found that as there is no recognized “pit bull terrier” breed, the inclusion of “a pit bull terrier” (s. 1(1)(a)) was unconstitutionally vague. She also found that the use of the word “includes” in the definition of “pit bull” rendered the definition unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, she struck down the word “includes” and s. 1(1)(a) and read into the opening of the definition of “pit bull” the word “means” in place of the word “includes”.

[14] With respect to s. 19, the application judge found that a trial judge has the discretion to permit cross-examination of the veterinarian and therefore rejected the contention that s. 19 violated the accused’s rights to a fair trial. However, the application judge also held that s. 19 created a mandatory evidentiary burden that violated the right to be presumed innocent guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Charter and that the violation could not be justified as a reasonable limit pursuant to s. 1. She held that the appropriate remedy was to sever s. 19 and to strike it down.

[15] The application judge also rejected the applicant’s submissions that the pit bull provisions were ultra vires the province and that they conflicted with federal legislation. No appeal is taken from those findings.

[16] In view of the divided success, the application judge declined to award costs.

ISSUES

[17] The appeal and cross-appeal raise the following issues:
(1) Are the pit bull provisions unconstitutionally overbroad?
(2) Is the definition of “pit bull” unconstitutionally vague?
(3) Does s. 19, providing for proof that the dog is a pit bull through a veterinarian’s certificate, violate s. 11(d) of the Charter?
(4) If there are any violations of the Charter, are they justified pursuant to s. 1?
(5) To the extent that the pit bull provisions are unconstitutionally vague, is severance and reading in the appropriate remedy?
(6) Did the application judge err by refusing to award the appellant costs?

ANALYSIS

Issue 1. Are the pit bull provisions unconstitutionally overbroad?

[18] Overbreadth is a term used to describe legislation that, as drafted, covers more than is necessary to attain the legislature’s objective and thereby impinges unduly upon a protected right or freedom. A law is unconstitutionally overbroad if it deprives an individual of “life, liberty and security of the person” in a manner that is “grossly disproportionate” to the state interest that the legislation seeks to protect. Such a law is said to be “arbitrary” and offends “the principles of fundamental justice” and therefore violates s. 7 of the Charter. A law that restricts the rights guaranteed by s. 7 is also “arbitrary” unless it is grounded in a “reasoned apprehension of harm”. The onus of proving that the law is “arbitrary” or “grossly disproportionate” lies on the applicant: see R. v. Malmo-Levine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, at paras. 78, 133, 143.

[19] The Attorney General concedes that as the Act provides for a potential penalty of imprisonment, the s. 7 right not to be deprived of “life, liberty and security of the person… except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” is implicated. There is no dispute that the legislative purpose of the pit bull provisions is to reduce, and ultimately to eliminate, the risk of pit bull attacks in Ontario. The appellant concedes that the protection of the public from dog bites and dog attacks is a legitimate legislative objective.

[20] The contentious issue is whether the appellant satisfied the onus of demonstrating that the law is “arbitrary” or “grossly disproportionate” to the legislature’s objective.

[21] The appellant relies on evidence to the effect that not all pit bulls are inherently dangerous and argues that by imposing a total ban on all pit bulls, whether shown to be dangerous or not, the sweep of the law is excessive and not capable of justification as proportionate to the alleged risk pit bulls pose to public safety. The appellant’s evidence may be summarized as follows:
· Expert opinion that most dogs, including pit bulls, are kind and gentle and that many pit bulls have never bitten anyone and that it is not possible to link dangerousness to breed.
· Evidence that a variety of factors other than a dog’s breed determine dangerousness, including: inherited and learned behaviours, breeding, socialization, function and physical condition and size of the dog, reproductive status, popularity of breed, individual temperament, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behaviour, victim size and physical condition, timing and misfortune.
· Statistical and expert evidence that pit bulls are responsible for only a small proportion of recorded bite incidents and fatal dog attacks in Canada .

[22] The Attorney General responds with evidence that pit bulls do pose a serious threat to public safety. That evidence may be summarized as follows:
· Evidence of four savage pit bull attacks resulting in significant personal injury shortly before the enactment of the pit bull provisions and the evidence of several police officers who confronted and shot pit bulls that were attacking someone or that were aggressively threatening police officers.
· American expert witnesses who observed highly aggressive behaviour unique to pit bulls, not exhibited by any other type or breed of dog, and who considered pit bulls to be a recognized danger to public safety.
· An American statistical study finding that pit bull-type dogs were involved in a high proportion of dog bite related fatalities in the United States from 1981 to 1992.
· Expert evidence that pit bulls can be unusually unpredictable and as they have a tendency to attack without warning or provocation, there may be nothing a potential victim can do to prevent or avoid an attack.

[23] The application judge carefully reviewed and analyzed this evidence and concluded as follows, at paras. 74, 79 and 84 of her reasons on the constitutional challenge:
[T]here is inconclusive and competing evidence in the case at hand. However, conclusive evidence is not required before a government can take action. It is also not necessary for the court to resolve the conflicting evidence. There is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to conclude that the legislature, in enacting these provisions, had a “reasoned apprehension of harm” concerning the dangerousness of pit bulls.
…
It is my opinion that, in the face of this conflicting evidence, the legislature was entitled to decide that there was a sufficient body of evidence with respect to the inability to identify dangerous pit bulls in advance of an attack so as to justify restrictions that apply to all pit bulls. The recommended alternative approaches to breed-specific legislation largely depend on either a previous dangerous act or a responsible dog owner identifying a dangerous dog and taking appropriate action. Where public safety is concerned, it was open to the legislature to choose the more cautious approach.
…
It is not my task to substitute my opinion for that of the legislature as to how best to protect the public. It is also not necessary for me to resolve the conflicting evidence as to the role that breed plays in determining whether a dog is dangerous and whether pit bulls, as a breed, are dangerous. The legislature, in determining how to accomplish its objective, is not required to have conclusive evidence before it enacts legislation. The evidence with respect to the dangerousness of pit bulls, although conflicting and inconclusive, is sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute a “reasoned apprehension of harm”. In the face of conflicting evidence as to the feasibility of less restrictive means to protect the public, it was open to the legislature to decide to restrict the ownership of all pit bulls.

[24] The appellant submits that the application judge erred by refusing to make findings of fact and by failing to resolve the conflicting evidence. The appellant submits that the application judge was required to decide whether pit bulls are in fact inherently dangerous and whether a total ban on pit bulls was required to meet the legislature’s concerns in relation to public safety. Without making such findings, the appellant submits, the application judge was not in a position to dismiss the overbreadth challenge.

[25] I disagree with the appellant’s submissions and see no error in the approach taken by the application judge. In my view, the appellant’s submission misstates – and significantly understates – the burden that rests upon a claimant who challenges a law under s. 7 on grounds of overbreadth. As I have stated, the test for a breach of s. 7 on grounds of overbreadth is whether the law is “arbitrary” because there is no “reasoned apprehension of harm” or whether the law is “grossly disproportionate” to the legislative objective. To meet that test, the appellant had to satisfy the onus of demonstrating that the legislature did not have a basis for a “reasoned apprehension of harm” from pit bulls or that the action taken by the legislature was “grossly disproportionate” to the risk posed by pit bulls. Fairly read, the reasons of the application judge indicate that she quite properly focussed her analysis on these issues. In my view, the record amply supports the application judge’s conclusion that the appellant failed to satisfy the onus of demonstrating a breach of s. 7 on grounds of overbreadth.
(i) Ban not arbitrary

[26] The application judge applied the well-established Charter principle that where the risk of harm or the efficaciousness of Parliament’s remedy is difficult or impossible to measure scientifically it is for the legislature, not the courts, to decide upon the appropriate course of action, provided there is evidence of a “reasoned apprehension of harm”. It was not the role of the application judge to make detailed factual findings as that would lead to “micromanagement of Parliament’s agenda”. Her task was rather to apply the “relevant constitutional control”; namely, “the general principle that the parliamentary response must not be grossly disproportionate to the state interest sought to be protected”: see Malmo-Levine, at para. 133.

[27] The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held that the “legislature is not required to provide scientific proof based on concrete evidence of the problem it seeks to address in every case” and that in the absence of “determinative scientific evidence” it is appropriate for the court to rely “on logic, reason and some social science evidence” to determine whether there is “a reasoned apprehension of that harm”: see Harper v. Canada (A.G.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, at paras. 77-78.

[28] In R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, at para. 89, McLachlin C.J. stated with respect to disputed evidence regarding the impact of child pornography that “the courts cannot hold Parliament to a higher standard of proof than the subject matter admits of” and that as “some studies” linked child pornography to the incitement of offences, a “reasoned apprehension of harm” was made out. Similarly, in R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452, at pp. 502-503, another case dealing with disputed evidence regarding the effects of pornography, Sopinka J. assessed the evidence as being “inconclusive” but, applying Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (A.G.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, at p. 990, recognized that the government must be “afforded a margin of appreciation to form legitimate objectives based on somewhat inconclusive social science evidence.”

[29] In each of these cases, the Supreme Court declined to make factual findings on disputed scientific evidence and, once satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to give rise to a “reasoned apprehension of harm”, deferred to legislative judgment. The application judge correctly took the same approach and concluded that there was sufficient evidence of a reasoned apprehension of harm to permit the legislature to act.

[30] I disagree with the appellant’s submission that this reasoning applies only at the minimal impairment stage of s. 1 and that the application judge erred by applying it to determine whether there had been a violation of s. 7 on account of overbreadth. First, as a matter of authority, the Supreme Court of Canada appears to have assimilated the minimal impairment analysis under s. 1 with the overbreadth analysis under s. 7: see e.g. R. v. Clay, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735, at para. 35; R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606, at p. 629. Second, as a matter of principle, I fail to see why the determination of whether legislation is overbroad and therefore in violation of s. 7 should involve a more stringent test than the test to determine whether minimal impairment has been satisfied. The s. 1 minimal impairment test only comes into play when the government is attempting to justify an infringement of Charter rights. If anything, one would expect the test to be more stringent where the claimant has demonstrated a Charter breach and the onus rests with the government to demonstrate that the breach is justified.
(ii) Law not grossly disproportionate

[31] To determine whether a law is “grossly disproportionate” to the legislative objective, one must consider the nature and gravity of the alleged Charter infringement in relation to the importance of the legislature’s objective. As the application judge correctly observed, the right to own a dog is not protected by the Charter. The applicant is able to invoke s. 7 only because of the possibility that a court might impose a penalty of imprisonment for violation of the Act, an unlikely prospect absent blameworthy conduct by an owner leading to personal injury. This possibility of imprisonment must be weighed against the risk that pit bulls pose to public safety. The test of gross disproportionality clearly incorporates a substantial measure of deference to the legislature’s assessment of the risk to public safety and the need for the impugned law: R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761, at p. 793; Clay, at para. 40.

[32] In my view, the reasons of the application judge demonstrate an entirely appropriate and defensible analysis and weighing of these competing factors. At para. 86 of her reasons, she states:
When one considers the interests at stake, that is, the objective of public safety as against the restrictions on dog owners, it is my opinion that this was a choice that the legislators were entitled to make. I conclude, therefore, that the means the legislature has chosen are not too sweeping in relation to the objective and the provisions are not unconstitutionally overbroad.

[33] I also agree with the application judge’s conclusion that the total ban on pit bulls is not “arbitrary” or “grossly disproportionate” in light of the evidence that pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation. This evidence of unpredictability provided the legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls.

[34] I agree with the Attorney General’s submission that the Charter does not require an individual assessment of each dog before it can be required to wear a leash or muzzle. Evidence of the unpredictable risk of severe harm is sufficient to allow the legislature reasonably to conclude that pit bulls as a group are dangerous because of the risk they pose. Legislatures frequently enact blanket prohibitions on things or activities that may be used or conducted safely because of the risk that severe harm can result from misuse or misconduct. The prohibition and regulation of certain firearms provides an example.

[35] The legislature’s response to the problem posed by pit bulls is not analogous to the legislative responses in the cases relied upon by the appellant. In Heywood, and R. v. Demers, [2004] S.C.R. 489, the impugned laws directly impinged upon the claimants’ liberty interest in a manner more significant than the pit bull provisions. Furthermore, in those cases, there existed adequate and less drastic measures capable of protecting public safety. In Heywood, the impugned law provided a lifetime ban on sex offenders from frequenting all public parks and bathing areas. The court found that the risk of harm could be satisfied by limiting the ban to parks frequented by children and reviewing the need to continue the order from time to time. In Demers, all permanently unfit accused, including persons who were not a significant threat to the public, were consigned to indefinite assessment and review with no possibility of trial or discharge. The court concluded that indefinite incarceration of such individuals could not be justified.

[36] Accordingly, I do not accept the submission that the application judge erred by rejecting the challenge to the Act on grounds of overbreadth.
Issue 2. Is the definition of “pit bull” unconstitutionally vague?

[37] Vagueness describes a lack of precision in legislation that leaves its meaning and application unacceptably uncertain. Legislation should provide fair notice to citizens as to what conduct is prohibited, appropriate limits on the discretion of law enforcement officials and a proper basis for coherent judicial interpretation. A law that implicates the s. 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person will be struck down as being inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice if it is not sufficiently intelligible to meet these objectives.

[38] On the other hand, certainty is not the standard and legislation is not unconstitutionally vague simply because it is subject to interpretation. As the Supreme Court of Canada held in Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, at pp. 638-39:
Legal rules only provide a framework, a guide as to how one may behave, but certainty is only reached in instant cases, where law is actualized by a competent authority. In the meanwhile, conduct is guided by approximation. The process of approximation sometimes results in quite a narrow set of options, sometimes in a broader one. Legal dispositions therefore delineate a risk zone, and cannot hope to do more, unless they are directed at individual instances.
…
Language is not the exact tool some may think it is. It cannot be argued that an enactment can and must provide enough guidance to predict the legal consequences of any given course of conduct in advance. All it can do is enunciate some boundaries, which create an area of risk. But it is inherent to our legal system that some conduct will fall along the boundaries of the area of risk; no definite prediction can then be made. Guidance, not direction, of conduct is a more realistic objective.

[39] It is sufficient for the law to delineate an area of risk. It is only “where a court has embarked upon the interpretative process, but has concluded that interpretation is not possible” that a law will be declared unconstitutionally vague: Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031, at para. 79.

[40] The appellant submits that in concluding that s. 1(1)(e) of the Act was not impermissibly vague, the application judge erred for the following reasons:
· The application judge understated the test for vagueness by allowing a law to stand which failed to identify a clear area of risk to dog owners.
· The Canadian Kennel Club does not register any dog as a “pit bull” or recognize the “American Pit Bull terrier” as a breed. There are very few American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Terriers in Canada and the application of the law rests essentially on the “substantially similar” clause which fails to provide sufficient guidance.
· Subsection 1(2) of the Act, which refers to breed standards, is permissive rather than mandatory and as it does not require a judge to have regard to the listed breeds, it fails to provide sufficient guidance.
· The application judge misapplied expert evidence indicating that it was impossible to identify a pit bull.

[41] I agree with the application judge’s conclusion that the definition of “pit bull” in ss. 1(1)(b)-(e) and 1(2) sufficiently delineates an area of risk and provides a basis for intelligible debate and interpretation. The core of the definition is the reference in ss. 1(1)(b)-(d) to the three named breeds that have defined physical characteristics that are accepted by kennel clubs and dog breeder associations. That well-defined core is not exhaustive, but it provides a point of reference that identifies the essential physical characteristics for pit bulls. The phrase “substantially similar” is commonly used in statutes to embrace a somewhat broader class than that captured by an enumerated list of referents. To the extent that the definition of “pit bull” extends beyond the specified breeds, the substantially similar clause is capable of controlling or limiting the reach of the law within constitutionally acceptable limits.

[42] As the application judge stated at para. 176, the breed standards “provide guidance to dog owners and others to assist them in determining whether a particular dog falls within the definition.” While s. 1(2) permits rather than mandates reference to breed standards, the application judge correctly observed at para. 177 that the court “is required to exhaust its interpretative function before it can be said that a law is vague.” I agree with her conclusion at para. 177 that the reference to the identified breeds “provides an interpretive guide and is sufficient… to provide the necessary guidance or benchmarks.”

[43] The appellant’s arguments must be considered in light of the established jurisprudence dealing with vagueness. In my view, the appellant’s submissions assume that a higher degree of precision is required for a law to survive s. 7 vagueness scrutiny than is warranted by the case law. As the Attorney General points out in its factum, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a long list of laws that are arguably more vague and uncertain in their application than the pit bull provisions. The statutory provisions upheld by the Supreme Court include:
· A Criminal Code provision creating a defence to assault where the force used is “reasonable under the circumstances”: Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada , [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76.
· A Competition Act offence of entering into an agreement to “unduly” lessen competition: Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society.
· A Divorce Act provision requiring the judge making a custody order to take into account only “the best interests of the child”: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3.
· A Criminal Code prohibition against publishing material where a dominant characteristic is “the undue exploitation of sex”: Butler.
· Immigration Act provisions allowing for the deportation of persons who pose a “danger to the security of Canada ” or who are members of organizations who have engaged in “terrorism”: Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3.
· A Canada Elections Act provision limiting the ability of third parties to promote one or more candidates by taking a position on an issue with which they are particularly “associated”: Harper.
· An Environmental Protection Act prohibition against the discharge of a “contaminant” that “causes or is likely to cause impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it”: Canadian Pacific.
· A Tobacco Act prohibition on the promotion of tobacco products by means that are “likely to create an erroneous impression about the characteristics, health effects or health hazards of the… product or its emissions”: Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610.

[44] These cases demonstrate that a law will not be struck down as being vague simply because reasonable people might disagree as to its application to particular facts. No doubt individuals, even experts, may disagree about what is in the “best interests of the child”, whether a particular contract would “unduly” lessen competition, whether a specific political issue is “particularly associated” with a given political party, or whether a dominant characteristic of a publication is the “undue exploitation of sex”. Yet each one of those phrases has been held to have sufficient precision to survive s. 7 scrutiny. In these and other areas of social or regulatory policy, the fact that identification and classification does not lend itself to linguistic certainty will not defeat laws which provide a degree of clarity capable of supporting intelligible debate. In my view, given the nature of the subject-matter and the importance of the objective, the Attorney General’s submission that the impugned provision gives sufficient guidance is well supported by the authorities cited.

[45] It is worth noting that while not directly applicable to a Charter challenge, vagueness challenges to similar definitions in municipal by-laws restricting pit bulls have failed in Canada: Madronero v. Lachine (Ville), [1990] Q.J. No. 307 (S.C.); Manitoba Assn. of Dog Owners v. Winnipeg (City), [1993] M.J. No. 661 (Q.B.), at paras. 11-13, aff’d [1994] M.J. No. 643 (C.A.).

[46] I note as well that laws banning or restricting pit bulls have been enacted in many American jurisdictions and American courts have overwhelmingly rejected vagueness challenges to pit bull laws containing definitions similar to the one at issue here. Included in the long list of cases to this effect cited by the Attorney General are: Hearn v. Overland Park, 244 Kan. 638, 772 P.2d 758 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 976 (1989); State of Ohio v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St. 3d 168, 566 N.E.2d 1224 (1991), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1257 (1991); American Dog Owners Asso. v. Yakima, 13 Wn.2d 213, 777 P.2d 1046 (1991); Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 820 P.2d 644 ( Colo. 1991); American Dog Owners Assn. v. Des Moines, 469 N.W.2d 416 ( Iowa 1991); Greenwood v. North Salt Lake, 817 P.2d 816 ( Utah 1991).

[47] I turn now to the issue raised by the Attorney General’s cross-appeal: did the application judge err in holding that the word “includes” in the opening of s. 1(1) and the inclusion of the phrase “a pit bull terrier” in s. 1(1)(a) render the definition of “pit bull” unconstitutionally vague?

[48] The application judge held that it should be presumed that by adding the phrase “a pit bull terrier”, the legislature must have meant to add something to the definition not captured by the balance of s. 1. She found that there is no recognized breed of pit bull terrier and no agreement among the experts as to what dogs are or are not pit bull terriers. At para. 185 of her reasons, she concluded as follows:
[T]he phrases “pit bull includes” and “pit bull terriers” are problematic in so far as they appear to include an undefined number of dogs that fall beyond the three specified breeds and dogs substantially similar to those three breeds. In so far as these terms go beyond the three breeds, they do not, in my opinion, provide sufficient guidance to courts or to those who have to enforce the legislation. They also do not define an “area of risk” for dog owners.

[49] For the following reasons, I respectfully disagree with this conclusion. In my opinion, the definition of “pit bull” as enacted by the legislature survives s. 7 vagueness scrutiny.

[50] There is ample evidence in the record to demonstrate that the terms “pit bull” and “pit bull terrier” are generic, dictionary terms commonly used by members of the public, scholars, veterinarians, animal control officers and humane societies to describe American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, and dogs that are hybrids or mixes of these breeds or that have substantially similar characteristics. The terms “pit bull” and “pit bull terrier” are found in many of the articles and the professional literature cited in the record as well as in the testimony of most of the witnesses. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001 ed., defines a “pit bull” or “pit bull terrier” as “a dog of an American variety of bull terrier, noted for its ferocity”. The legislature cannot be faulted for using vernacular or generic terms to alert the public to the nature of a prohibition also described in more precise scientific or technical language: Canadian Pacific, at para. 53.

[51] The terms “pit bull” and “pit bull terrier” must also be read in their context as elements of a more comprehensive definition. I do not agree with the application judge that by enacting the phrase “pit bull includes” and including the phrase “a pit bull terrier”, the legislature must have intended to add to the reach of the definition of “pit bull” to include a broader class than captured by ss. 1(1)(b)-(e). Legislatures commonly use repetitive and redundant language, repeating commonly used synonymous words out of an abundance of caution to ensure that the terms of a statute are given a compendious meaning. The test for vagueness is unintelligibility, not redundancy, and the inclusion of repetitive language does not render the definition constitutionally infirm.

[52] In addition, the word “includes” does not necessarily require an expansive interpretation extending the definition beyond the itemized list contained in ss. 1(1)(a)-(e). The word “includes” “may… depending on the context, precede a list that exhausts the definition”: Re Canada 3000 Inc. (Re), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 865, at para. 47. Where possible, legislation should be interpreted in a manner that corresponds to constitutional rights and values. To the extent the word “includes” is susceptible of importing an unacceptably vague definition, giving it narrow import as exhausting the definition is preferable to striking it down.

[53] Accordingly, I would allow this part of the cross-appeal, set aside paragraph 1 of the judgment and restore s. 1 as enacted.
Issue 3. Does s. 19, providing for proof that the dog is a pit bull through a veterinarian’s certificate, violate s. 11(d) of the Charter?

[54] Before the application judge, the appellant made two arguments in relation to s. 19:
(i) the lack of a provision for cross-examination in respect of the document from the veterinarian contravenes the right to a fair trial guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Charter, and
(ii) the fact that the document is proof that the dog is a pit bull, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, infringes the defendant's right to be presumed innocent contrary to s. 11(d) of the Charter.

[55] On the first issue, the application judge concluded that ss. 39 and 46 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 give trial judges a discretion to allow for cross-examination of the veterinarian who signed the certificate. She held at para. 215 of her reasons that “it should be assumed that the discretion of the court to give leave to a defendant to cross-examine will be exercised in a way that is consistent with Charter rights and, in particular, with the right to trial fairness and the due administration of justice.”

[56] We agree. This ruling, from which no appeal was taken, is a full answer to the appellant’s first ground of attack on s.19. A trial judge’s discretion to permit cross-examination of the veterinarian is an important safeguard of an accused’s s. 11(d) rights. There is no reason to suppose that leave to cross-examine, if sought, will be improperly or lightly denied.

[57] On the second issue, the application judge concluded that by providing for proof by veterinarian’s certificate, s. 19 creates a mandatory evidentiary presumption that violates the s. 11(d) Charter right “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty”. The Attorney General cross-appeals on this issue. For the following reasons, I conclude that, properly interpreted, s. 19 does not create a situation where the accused is liable to be convicted in spite of a reasonable doubt and therefore does not violate the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I would therefore allow the Attorney General’s cross-appeal on this issue.

[58] As I read s. 19, it simply provides that as proof of the fact that a dog falls within the definition of “pit bull”, the Crown may introduce a certificate to that effect purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario. Despite the rather complicated wording of s. 19, in the end, when properly interpreted, its legal effect is to overcome the effect of the hearsay evidence rule that would make a veterinarian’s certificate inadmissible. Allowing for proof by way of veterinarian’s certificate does not create a presumption, nor does it violate the presumption of innocence. Rather, s. 19 is an enabling provision that merely affords the prosecution a more expedient method of proving a fact necessary to sustain a conviction.

[59] In R. v. Downey, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10, at p. 21, Cory J. referred to the landmark case of R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 115, where Dickson C.J. identified two types of presumptions:
Presumptions can be classified into two general categories: presumptions without basic facts and presumptions with basic facts. A presumption without a basic fact is simply a conclusion which is to be drawn until the contrary is proved. A presumption with a basic fact entails a conclusion to be drawn upon proof of the basic fact. [Citations omitted.]

[60] Presumptions without basic facts are the legal starting point for the determination of a factual issue. Presumptions without basic facts relate to placement of the legal or evidentiary burden of proof as a matter of law. The presumption of innocence is the classic example. Until the Crown proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is presumed to be innocent.

[61] Presumptions with basic facts operate by either permitting (a permissive presumption) or requiring (a mandatory presumption) the trier of fact to find the presumed fact upon proof of some other “basic fact”. For example, the provision in the Narcotics Control Act at issue in Oakes required the trier of fact to find an intention to traffic drugs (the presumed fact) upon proof of possession of drugs (the basic fact). Similarly, the provision at issue in Downey involved a presumption from basic facts: s. 212(3) of the Criminal Code provided that “[e]vidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of prostitutes… is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution”.

[62] As Downey and Oakes make clear, the focus for inquiry in relation to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by s. 11(d) is this: does the legislative provision create a situation where the accused is liable to be convicted despite the existence of a reasonable doubt?

[63] In Downey, Cory J. explained at p. 29 how this concern may or may not arise in the case of presumptions with basic facts:
Legislation which substitutes proof of one element for proof of an essential element will not infringe the presumption of innocence if as a result of the proof of the substituted element, it would be unreasonable for the trier of fact not to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of the other element. To put it another way, the statutory presumption will be valid if the proof of the substituted fact leads inexorably to the proof of the other. However, the statutory presumption will infringe s. 11(d) if it requires the trier of fact to convict in spite of a reasonable doubt.

[64] Thus, in Oakes, proof of possession of drugs did not lead inexorably to proof of an intention to traffic drugs. Similarly, in Downey, proof that the accused lived with prostitutes did not lead inexorably to proof that the accused was living off the avails of prostitution. In both cases, the accused were liable to be convicted in spite of a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

[65] Does s. 19 create a situation where the accused is liable to be convicted in spite of a reasonable doubt, either through the existence of a basic fact presumption or otherwise?

[66] It is clear that s. 19 does not fall into the category of presumptions with basic facts. The veterinarian’s certificate does not prove a basic fact from which the trier of fact may or must find the presumed fact, i.e. that the dog is a pit bull. The certificate is direct evidence of that fact and its evidentiary force does not depend upon any presumption. Section 19 of the Act simply renders the certificate admissible and capable of being used by the trier of fact as direct evidence of the dog’s breed, not as proof of some other fact that in turn allows or requires the trier of fact to presume the dog’s breed.

[67] Could s. 19 nonetheless give rise to a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt? By providing that the veterinarian’s certificate is “proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary”, s. 19(1) is, on its face, perhaps suggestive of a reverse onus. However, in the end, I am not persuaded that it has that effect. The provision at issue in Downey used similar language. However, Downey dealt with a presumption with a basic fact which clearly gave rise to the possibility of conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt. Section 19 does not operate by creating a presumption from a basic fact. As the appellant candidly acknowledged during oral argument, s. 19 is not analogous to the statutory provision at issue in Downey. It follows that the reasoning in Downey is therefore distinguishable. Moreover, s. 19(3) explicitly preserves the presumption of innocence and requires the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

[68] Once the Crown relies on s. 19 to introduce a veterinarian’s certificate that a dog is a pit bull, it is true that the accused risks being convicted unless he or she offers something, either through cross-examination of the veterinarian or by adducing other evidence, to suggest that the dog is not a pit bull. The certificate creates a situation where the accused faces a tactical burden to point to some evidence capable of raising a reasonable doubt as to the dog’s breed. But to the extent that s. 19 thereby creates what may be described as an evidentiary burden, I do not agree that it violates the presumption of innocence. It is simply the tactical burden that any accused faces once the Crown makes out a prima facie case on an essential element of the offence. Unanswered – for the certificate is only “proof” that the dog is a pit bull when it is unanswered – the certificate is proof that the dog is a pit bull. The provision that the certificate is “proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary” in this context amounts to a statement of the obvious rather than a legal prescription altering the burden of proof.

[69] Finally, to remove any doubt on the matter, I repeat that s. 19(3) explicitly preserves the presumption of innocence, providing that “this section does not remove the onus on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Nothing in s. 19 relieves against the Crown’s obligation to prove all elements of an offence under the Act to the requisite criminal standard of proof.

[70] Accordingly, I do not agree that s. 19 violates s. 11(d) of the Charter and I would therefore set aside paragraph 2 of the judgment striking down s. 19.
Issue 4. If there are any violations of the Charter, are they justified pursuant to s. 1?
Issue 5. To the extent that the pit bull provisions are unconstitutionally vague, is severance and reading in the appropriate remedy?
Issue 6. Did the application judge err by refusing to award the appellant costs?

[71] As I have concluded that there is no Charter breach, and that the appeal should be dismissed and cross-appeal allowed, it is not necessary for me to consider the issues of s. 1 justification, the appropriate remedy or the application judge’s disposition as to costs.

CONCLUSION

[72] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal, set aside paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment below and dismiss the application. If the parties are unable to agree as to costs, we will receive brief written submissions to be provided by the Attorney General within ten days of the release of these reasons and by the appellant within five days thereafter.
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“I agree John Laskin J.A.”
“I agree E.A. Cronk J.A.”
RELEASED: October 24, 2008
Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General) (October 24, 2008)

We are NOT giving up!!!

2008-10-25T00:08:00.005-04:00

Sad and totally disappointed? Yes! Gonna keep fighting? You betcha! All the way up to the top!

Ont.'s highest court says pit bulls are 'unpredictable' dogs, upholds ban
TORONTO

Pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable dogs that have the potential to attack without warning, the Ontario Court of Appeal said Friday in a decision upholding the province's ban on the animals.

The Ontario government enacted the Dog Owners' Liability Act in 2005 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people.

The Appeal Court ruled Friday that the ban on the breed does not violate any constitutional rights, as lawyers had argued.

The law survived a constitutional challenge in March 2007, though some changes were ordered. Superior Court Justice Thea Herman said a ban on "pit bull terriers" was unconstitutionally vague because it didn't refer to a specific type or breed of dog.
But the Appeal Court disagreed, restoring the law to the form in which it was enacted.

"The total ban on pit bulls is not 'arbitrary' or 'grossly disproportionate' in light of the evidence that pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation," the judges said in their decision Friday.

"This evidence of unpredictability provided the legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls."

Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who challenged the law, called it a "sad day" in Ontario.
"Kind, loving, gentle dogs are being killed across this province for no reason," he said in a statement.

"The provincial government should focus their efforts and resources on identifying truly dangerous dogs rather than apprehending and killing dogs that pose no threat at all."

Ruby said he is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Jean-anne Moors of Banned Aid, a coalition fighting the ban, said the group knew it was fighting an uphill battle against the government, but she is still "very disappointed."

"I have three so-called pit bull-type dogs who are all legal under the law," she said, meaning she owned the dogs before the law came into effect and they are muzzled when out in public.

Still, she said, "Everybody's looking at me as if I'm some kind of criminal when I walk down the streets with my dogs. They have no history of aggression."

Moors said the law sets a troubling precedent because it's not just a pit bull issue.

"If a government ... can make such an arbitrary decision that a dog is a bad and dangerous dog and seize it under certain circumstances and destroy it ... that's a matter of concern to anybody who has a dog - period."

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley said he was pleased the court upheld the legislation.

"We brought in the legislation because it was important to keep people safe, and our province will do whatever it takes to keep the people of Ontario safe," he said.

Ontario Court Of Appeals Upholds Province's Pit Bull Ban Law
Friday October 24, 2008
CityNews.ca

It is a major disappointment for those who vowed to fight the controversial ban on pit bulls. The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed a well publicized challenge to the law that virtually guarantees the extinction of the animals in this province.

It was initiated by a woman named Catherine Cochrane, who hired high profile lawyer Clayton Ruby to try and strike down the legal restrictions as being too broad. Ruby had argued that the so-called 2005 Breed Specific Legislation so famously passed by then-Attorney General Michael Bryant wasn't clear on what constituted one of the dogs and was too confusing to be enforceable.

But the attempt to get a reversal backfired on the lawyer and his client, when the court not only upheld the law but actually reinstated parts of it that had been found unconstitutional back in March of 2007.

" Justice Herman and now the Court of Appeal have simply accepted the government's assertion that there is a 'reasoned apprehension of harm' about 'pit bulls' to justify the ban, without allowing us to show that there is no credible evidence to support this," Ruby notes in statement.

"The provincial government should focus their efforts and resources on identifying truly dangerous dogs rather than apprehending and killing dogs that pose no threat at all."

The law was originally enacted after a series of high profile attacks by dogs identified as being pit bulls. Under the new rules, the breed can no longer be brought into Ontario and those that are already here must live out the rest of their lives under extreme restrictions. Those include prohibiting them from running loose and muzzling them every time they're out in public.

Those opposed to the law have always maintained it's far too vague in defining what a pit bull is and that it's bad owners and not the animals themselves who should be targeted.

But you may not have heard the end of the back-and-forth barking in this bitter battle. Ruby and his client are both pondering their options and are now considering appealing this latest decision all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

But for now, the law stands.

Read it here.

Provincially banned canines common in Ottawa and Ont.'s pit bull ban re-affirmed

2008-10-24T21:06:00.005-04:00

Vast views of opinions in Ontario's cities regarding the Pit bull ban is causing the law hard to uphold. For some that agree or appose for a variety of reasons, there is also the cost factor and manpower. Leave it to Michael Bryant to wedged a major dilemma to all involved by placing all the cost of his bill into municipality hands.

Look who's fighting now and it NOT the Pit bull-type dogs...but then again, it never was. It took only one bully to start it all and his name is Michael Bryant as his Fiberal gang followed.

Provincially banned canines common in Ottawa
Officials will act against dangerous animals, but lack resources to enforce law
Patrick Dare
OttawaCitizen.com
October 24, 2008

OTTAWA - The Ontario government was on a mission a few years ago to rid the province of pit bull-type dogs and passed a law to ban them. But, in Ottawa, the animals are commonplace and city officials are opting to let them alone, as long as they behave.

The City of Ottawa says it will act when a dog of any breed presents a threat to public safety, but the city is not trying to crack down on pit bull-type dogs because it doesn't have the resources to do so, and the law pertaining to the dogs is difficult to enforce.

Susan Jones, director of bylaw enforcement for Ottawa, says that Ontario municipalities told the provincial government in 2005 that they would need some help from the province if it wanted a crackdown on the dogs. No assistance was sent.

Four years ago, pit bull-type dogs were judged a public menace by the Ontario government after a series of horrific attacks on people and other animals in the previous year.

Former attorney general Michael Bryant made it his mission to bring in a legal ban that required owners to sterilize their dogs, tightly control their movement and muzzle them in public. Mr. Bryant called the dogs "ticking time bombs."

The ban passed in the Ontario legislature despite the protests of dog lovers who said banning particular breeds was unfair. The law included fines of up to $10,000 and six months in jail for owners of pit bulls involved in violent incidents.

The law survived a court challenge in 2007, though minor elements of the law were struck down. The outcome of another legal challenge, by lawyer Clayton Ruby at the Ontario Court of Appeal, is being awaited. Even if it stands, the law is having limited impact in Ottawa.

The City of Ottawa has received many complaints about pit bull-type dogs being unleashed, unmuzzled, lunging at people and attacking other dogs since the law came into effect.

A Citizen municipal freedom of information request for complaints about the dogs from January 2006 to July of this year generated about 300 reports on calls to the city's bylaw services.

While some of the calls were simply owners of pit bull-type dogs trying to get information about the law, most were complaints about the dogs, and sometimes owners, who were making neighbours fear for their safety.

Some callers told of homes with two or three pit bull-type dogs. Some complainants said the animals were being bred, clearly in violation of Ontario law. The most common complaints were that the dogs were running around without being leashed and were not muzzled.

While the complaints released do not include names and locations, they do give a clear sense of the intimidation factor with these animals.

"The dog freaks out and lunges at people. Client is deadly afraid of both the owner and the dog," says one report from March of this year. Another report has parents fearful for their children returning home from school due to the presence of a pit bull-type dog running free. In August 2006, two of the dogs "terrorized" the neighbourhood of Alta Vista, according to one complaint.

Officials will act against dangerous animals, but lack resources to enforce law.

On several occasions, Shih Tzu dogs have been attacked. One of these small dogs had to be euthanized in March 2006 in the Bay ward after an attack from a pit bull-type dog named Fubu, which was itself later euthanized. In one report in June 2007, a loose dog in Nepean horrified neighbours by eating a groundhog.

In Ottawa, 20 bylaw officers look into 68,000 complaints in a year on everything from excessive noise to property standards. That work includes about 7,000 animal calls and 200 dog bites.

Susan Jones says her staff only have time to spend on cases of dogs that are a clear danger to the public. She said that in the last eight years, the city has only pushed to euthanize a pit bull-type dog in five or six cases. Most complaints in Ottawa simply result in a warning to the owner.

Ms. Jones says the city doesn't want to spend a lot of money and time pursuing a court case against owners of the dogs when dog breeders say that identifying pit bull-type dogs is not something that can be done with scientific certainty because a "pit bull" is not a breed.

"We don't have the ability to prove it," said Ms. Jones.

Under the provincial law, the banned dogs are defined as American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers or any dog that looks similar.

Ms. Jones' philosophy matches that of the Ottawa Humane Society, which supplies pound services for the city and believes dogs need to be dealt with based on their behaviour, not their breed.

Tara Jackson, communications manager with the Ottawa Humane Society, says the society tries to move young pit bull-type dogs into Quebec, where they are legal to have as pets. She says the Humane Society will only euthanize dogs if the animals are extremely aggressive or have an untreatable health condition.

"We don't euthanize based on breed at all," said Ms. Jackson.

Other Ontario cities, such as Toronto, Hamilton and Mississauga, have been more aggressive, holding onto pit bull-type dogs when they are apprehended and often euthanizing the animals, following the letter of the law.

Mississauga euthanized 38 of the dogs in 2007, according to Mississauga Councillor and former federal MP Carolyn Parrish, who is fighting to improve the treatment of pit bulls in her city. Ms. Parrish has been helping a 21-year-old woman fight to save a young pit bull-type dog named Rambo from being euthanized. They were successful and the animal will soon be relocated to Nova Scotia. But the fight began last December and took thousands of dollars to wage.

The City of Toronto has occasionally euthanized entire litters of puppies, though the city tries to find out-of-province homes for the animals.

The City of Hamilton added an officer to deal with the issue and made the animals "a priority call" after the province banned them, says Paul Buckle, manager of animal control. When a pit bull-type dog is taken in after a violent incident, the city finds that most owners consent to euthanasia.

Hamilton euthanized 103 pit bull-type dogs in 2005, 113 in 2006, and another 91 animals last year. So far this year, 54 of the dogs have been euthanized. Mr. Buckle says the gradually declining number of pit bull-type dogs being taken in suggests the provincial law is reducing the population in Hamilton.

Officials will act against dangerous animals, but lack resources to enforce law.

Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney General, said that while the government heard "loud and clear" that people wanted to be protected from "the menace of pit bulls," it's up to municipal governments to make decisions on enforcement of the new law.

To improve the control of the dogs, Ottawa Councillor Bob Monette recently proposed to the Ontario government that the pit bull law be changed to allow bylaw officers to fine owners of pit bull-type dogs for a set amount.

Mr. Monette says that the provincial law, requiring municipalities to euthanize pit bull-type dogs that are apprehended, is "an extreme punitive measure." He supports the provincial law on the dogs, but says "there's no real enforcement" because the city isn't interested in euthanizing pit bull-type dogs that aren't a public danger and is reluctant to get drawn into big legal battles over the animals.

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley replied in a letter that the existing Ontario law banning the dogs had reduced the population, and that allowing set fines may have the effect of minimizing the seriousness of the offences. He said in his letter to the councillor that the government won't allow the change to the law.

Another story in the OttawaCitizen.com is a statement by Clayton Ruby, our lawyer fighting against the breed ban.

Ont.'s pit bull ban re-affirmed

Canwest News Service
October 24, 2008

TORONTO - The Ontario Court of Appeal on Friday re-affirmed a law banning pit bull-type dogs in the province.

Last month, lawyer Clayton Ruby told a three-judge panel the definition of a pit bull under the Dog Owner's Liability Act is vague because it snares dozens of breeds that look like pit bulls, but are other breeds, half-breeds or mutts.

Ruby said Friday he was disappointed by the ruling.

The Ontario Court of Appeal on Friday re-affirmed a law banning pit bull-type dogs in the province.
Scott Webster
Windsor Star

Sadly, the absolute and unnecessary ban on 'pit bulls' in Ontario remains," the lawyer said in a statement.

"We are very disappointed with the decision of the court of appeal. We continue to believe that the definition of 'pit bull' is overly broad and vague. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the definition captures dogs that pose no threat to any person or animal."

He added the court has simply accepted the government's assertion that there is a 'reasoned apprehension of harm' about 'pit bulls' to justify the ban, without allowing opponents to show that there is no credible evidence to support this.

Under the provincial law, pit bulls are defined as American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire bull terrier or any dog that looks similar.

Owners are required to have their dogs neutered, muzzled and on a leash in public. Violators face a maximum penalty of $10,000 and six months in jail.

Rambo goes to court and Death row dog offered new lease on life

2008-10-08T16:45:00.005-04:00

Rambo goes to court

Is he a pit bull? Rambo, seen here in a recent picture taken at the Mississauga Animal Control Shelter, is on trial for his life starting today.

By: John Stewart
October 8, 2008

The case of Rambo, the puppy who stands accused of being a pit bull and is on trial for his life, returns to a Mississauga court this morning.Rambo's owner, 20-year-old Gabriela Nowakowska, spent last Christmas in tears after her beloved puppy escaped from the backyard where she lives in east Mississauga and was picked up by a municipal animal control officer.

Nowakowska was eventually charged with owning an illegal dog, since Ontario residents are no longer allowed to acquire dogs defined as pit bulls by legislation that was approved in 2005. That law is still under appeal.

The case became a lightning rod for opposition to the legislation, especially after Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish championed Rambo's cause. She challenged the City's policy to automatically put down dogs who are identified as pit bulls by staff and insisted that owners be given an option to send the dogs to new homes outside Ontario.

Council agreed to Parrish's suggestion that Nowakowska be granted weekly with Rambo visits at the animal control shelter before the case came to court. The scheduled three-day trial is to begin this morning at 10 a.m. at the provincial courthouse at 975 Burnhamthorpe Rd. W.

Negotiations have been ongoing between the crown and Nowakowska's lawyer, Anik Morrow, towards a possible resolution of the case.

jstewart@mississauga.net

You've heard me write about the case of Rambo. Rambo is a mutt that the ACC labeled Pit bull. Rambo did no crime that he was aware of. He didn't attack or show any aggression towards anyone. Rambo's crime was he accidently got out of the yard and was picked up. The owner broke no law until ACC labeled Rambo a Pit bull.

Ontario's law states that a Pit bull MUST be muzzled and leashed when in public, which Rambo didn't abide to. After all, he is a dog and does what dogs do. I've yet to meet a dog that can read, so accidents do happen even to the best of us.

Rambo had be locked up for so long with many court cases with more to come. He has already spent his time locked up since last Christmas. The most probably outcome was that Rambo would be murdered by ACC for breaking the Pit bull law.

Genuine love for Rambo gave Gabriela the sad courage to put Rambo before herself and allow Rambo to be given away to a home outside of Ontario where he could live a full, happy life. How true is that saying, 'If you love someone so much, let it go.' Unfortunately, unless we win in court having BSL taken out of Ontario's law, the last part of that saying can never come true, 'If they love you back, they will return to you.'

Here is the story of sacrifice and true love in The Mississauga News.

Death row dog offered new lease on life

File photo
Rambo, seen here in a recent picture taken at Mississauga Animal Control, is on trial for his life starting today.

By: John Stewart
October 8, 2008

Rambo, who has been living on doggie death row at the Mississauga Animal Shelter for the past nine months, will get a new lease on life if a proposed deal is approved in court this morning.

Gabriela Nowakowska has agreed that her dog, who is accused of being an illegal pit bull, can be shipped to a new home in Nova Scotia, where an adoptive home for him has been found through a dog rescue group.

The dog, picked up while running loose by the City's Animal Control department last Christmas Day, was accused of being an illegal pit bull under provincial legislation. He could have been executed if Nowakowska and her lawyer, Anik Morrow, had lost their case.

With the dog already having been confined for so long in the animal shelter and the possibility of more court delays looming if the case was not settled in the three days set aside for it this week, the 21-year-old woman decided to send the dog to a new home rather than risk having it killed.

Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish, who has championed Nowakowska's case and helped find and hire a lawyer for her, says it was an agonizing decision for the young woman to make."Gabriela is very sad," Parrish told The News. "But, in the end, she was more concerned about the dog than she was about making a point."

The controversial legislation that bans Ontarians from acquiring and owning new pit bulls was recently the subject of an appeal hearing in Toronto, where famed lawyer Clayton Ruby led the argument against it. A decision is expected in January at the earliest."

What good would it do if the legislation is struck down and Rambo is already dead?" asked Parrish. "If the object was to try to save a good pet, that's what has been done," the councillor added. Nowakowska has said all along that she wanted her dog to live but she also wanted him to stay with her. She has been visiting Rambo regularly over the past few months after City council amended its regulations to allow owners to visit animals expected to be incarcerated for lengthy periods.

Parrish said the dog has grown considerably and might be difficult to handle in a small apartment such as Nowakowska's. The deal between the crown and Nowakowska's lawyer was to be finalized today in a municipal courtroom on Burnhamthorpe Rd. W.

Parrish said that although there will be no court ruling stating that Rambo is not a pit bull as she had hoped, the fight has not been in vain. The City has made significant changes as a result of the Rambo case, she said, including the granting of "visiting rights" to incarcerated dogs and the requirement to offer owners the chance to have the dogs shipped out-of-province in similar circumstances in future.

Selma Mulvey, an advocate for dog owners' rights and blogger on animal issues who is supporting appeal of the pit bull legislation said, "I guess this means that either they didn't want to kill a good dog or they didn't think they could prove that Rambo looked like one of the rare breeds targeted for extinction in Ontario. We all know that there is no such breed as 'pit bull' and that there is no such thing as a 'dangerous breed.' The Rambo case shows that the provincial law is vague, inhumane and unnecessary."

jstewart@mississauga.net

PM'S a pet lover? Prove it.

2008-10-08T07:50:00.003-04:00

Here we have it from the horses...or I mean our Campaign Wannabe's. Doesn't give us much of a choice when it comes to issues that our close to our hearts. This story is from the Ottawa Sun and you can find it at
http://www.ottawasun.com/canadavotes/news/2008/10/07/7001286-sun.html under
CANADA VOTES 2008

PM's a pet lover? Prove it.
Layton has a thing for fish, Dion loves Kyoto and Duceppe's a closet pussycat, but Harper curiously mum on furry friends
By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

If Stephen Harper blows this election, it could be because it all came down to dogs, cats, birds, lizards, and fish.

You don't mess around with pet owners.

You don't show them you have a cold, dismissive heart.

There are hundreds of thousands of voting Canadians who own pets, madly love pets, expect their pets to be loved back, and if Jack Layton, Stephane Dion, Elizabeth May and Gilles Duceppe had a single clue about effective electioneering they'd get the word out across the land on the results of the recent questionnaire put to the leaders by the World Society For The Protection Of Animals (Canada).

Harper's responses in particular.

Harper who owns two cats.

Harper, who needs all the love from voters he can get.

The WSPA asked the leaders 11 questions about animal welfare and what they would do to guarantee the protection of Canada's animals.

Naturally, this matter is forefront in the minds of Canadian voters who, as the economy spirals down the drain, are tossing, turning, and weeping all night long wondering how they're going to be able to afford the next bags of kitty litter, kibble and milk bones. Saying "Eat up, think of all the starving pets in Europe," won't work when there's nothing to eat up.

You can't always discern the character of politicians through how they hold wee-wees-diapered babies, but you can come close through their pet-loving capacities. With that in mind, let's look at the answers to the first two questions in the WSPA survey, also of great interest to shrinks.

(1) Why do animals matter to you?

(2) What have you learned from a pet?

A JACK RUSSELL FOR JACK

Jack Layton. (1) "Animals are beautiful and awe-inspiring in the wild. They humble me and I consider the extraordinary diversity of life. Olivia and I seek as many opportunities as we can to be close to them, but in contexts where the wilderness is not transgressed."

Never mind the friggin' wild, Layton, get to the humane society -- a homeless chow for your wife Olivia Chow and a Jack Russell terrier for you.

(2) "Unconditional love, although I'm not entirely sure about our fish."

Then try, Layton -- you the "conscience of Canadians" (okay, 19% of them) -- showing you're the "conscience of Canada's animals." Deep-six the dumb fish and buy a homeless dog or cat for that "unconditional love."

Gilles Duceppe. (1) "Animals are living creatures. It's important to respect them and treat them with dignity."

But those living creatures known as the other party leaders? NON.

(2) "Pets are a source of joy. Sadly, I no longer have any pets. We used to have two magnificent cats, but after a few years together, we had to give them to a friend because I had developed allergies." Spare us the boo-hooing, Duceppe -- have you ever heard of a dog, bird, fish, lizard?
Stephane Dion, dog owner.

(1) "I have always seen wildlife as a critical part of our environment, sharing the planet with humankind. My entire life I have been fascinated by animals -- how they survive, how they raise their off-spring, how they interact with nature." Especially that breed of wild animal known as The Harper.

PETS 'FUN' FOR DION

(2) "Pets give us the opportunity to stay in touch with our childhood. Not only are pets fun, but they remind us of important values: Loyalty, courage, vivacity. Most of all it is always great to come home from a full day work and be greeted by the unconditional love of a pet." That, and they don't pick out your underwear.

Elizabeth May, dog, cat owner.

(1) "Animals are important in my life because they've urged me to develop compassion. My family and I have always had dogs. I love having animals around to welcome me home." They urged her to develop compassion? Can't beat those talking dawgs.

(2) "I learned from owning sheep when I was young that animals take care of one another and create relationships of attention and reliance."

Like those bosom-buddy animals, the Greens and the Liberals.

From Stephen Harper. (1) No response. (2) No response. All 11 questions. No response.

Leader Profiles

For finding more indepth information on the answers from the canadates, go to
http://www.wspa.ca/voteforanimals/index.html?utm_source=VoteEmail1&utm_medium=email&utm_content=LinkinFBStatus&utm_campaign=VoteEmail1
Harper of course did not respond to any of them as you will see as you check each one.

Pit bull cross released from quarantine Fate of dog yet to be decided

2008-10-02T15:24:00.004-04:00

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1228468

I find this editorial a very strange, mixed up story. I've read in quite a few other articles where a percentage of different breeds have made up a mutt. There is no such test and the only possible way of remotely trying to find out the breeds involved would probably be the Canadian Kennel Club...NOT ACC.

Animal Care Centre are simply employees that do their jobs to the best of their abilities and follow orders, bylaws and laws, but they are NOT experts in the breeds of dogs.

Yet, what is the most dangerous is that ACC can take a person to court demanding that a so called dog is in fact a Pit bull by percentage.

I'm sure there are many mixes that have Terrier in them, but that does not make them a Pit bull.

It also sounds like they are releasing this dog back to it's owner even though they have not yet determined it's fate.

Pierce also mentions that Armstrong was "somewhat apologetic" when she asked them to apologize to Victoria Broadbent for the attack of her dog that lead to death. Who is Pierce to say "somewhat apologetic"? Either she was or she wasn't and if she wasn't, she wouldn't have said anything at all.

It's obvious ACC wants the dog dead and what a better way than make the owner look bad too.

As for Armstrong, I think she better get her dog trained properly and get the dog aggression looked after. If a dog isn't well socialized, it shouldn't be placed with a whole bunch of dogs in the first place and let it run loose. You are just asking for trouble.

If you own a dog, it's your responsibility to make sure it is trained, maintained and contained properly as well as socialized as a young pup if possible.

Pit bull cross released from quarantine
Fate of dog yet to be decided
Posted By By W. Brice McVicar

A cross-bred pit bull that savaged and ultimately killed a dog at Belleville's dog park last month has been released from quarantine, but a decision has not yet been made on its fate. The animal, which was placed under quarantine for 10 days after the Sept. 18 attack, was released from quarantine on Monday. This means the dog can once again be in public places such as the dog park.

"We've released the animal from isolation and that's where our involvement ends," Dave Dodgson, senior inspector with the Hastings and Prince Edward Counties Health Unit, told The Intelligencer. "The rabies vaccination for the animal is up-to-date."

Late last week, Belleville police and Ron Pierce of Pierce Animal Control visited the woman who brought the pit bull cross to the local dog park. The Quinte West woman, Rose Armstrong, was charged under the Dog Owners Liability Act with allowing the dog to attack a person, allowing the dog to attack a domestic animal, failure to muzzle a pit bull, not having the pit bull on a leash and allowing a pit bull to "behave in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons and domestic animals." Pierce said there is no doubt the canine is partly pit bull. "It's definitely a cross. The muzzle on it isn't as wide as it should be and I'd say it's about 75 per cent pit bull," he said.

In 2005, the Ontario government passed a law with strict guidelines surrounding pit bulls including a ban on the dogs. Pit bulls that were alive at the time of the bill's creation were grandfathered but breeding of the dogs is no longer permitted. The legislation also requires pit bulls, when in public, to be on a leash and be muzzled. The law, had the dog been a full-blooded pit bull, would have allowed Pierce to seize the animal.

Pierce said the next step is to wait for the Oct. 20 court date to see what happens. He said one possible outcome is that a judge will issue a destruction order for the animal. In his conversation with Armstrong, Pierce said she was "somewhat apologetic" for the attack and asked an apology be delivered to Victoria Broadbent, the owner of the dog which died of the injuries it suffered during the attack.

Though Armstrong can now take her dog back out in public, Pierce said he plans to call her and advise her against it. "I'm going to give her a shout back and let her know if she does take that dog out around other animals she's taking quite a chance," he said. "The dog has an aggression problem, it's aggressive toward other dogs."

Calls to Armstrong by The Intelligencer were not returned.
bmcvicar@intelligencer.ca
Article ID# 1228468

Re: pit bull law should be overturned

2008-10-02T04:52:00.002-04:00

In the Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA

Re:pit bull law should be overturned
Posted By Susan MacLeod

Thank you for your editorial regarding "pit bull" ban in Ontario.

I wish more individuals would take the time and intelligence to look beyond the lies and manipulation that this ban is based on.

When Michael Bryant and Dalton McGuinty pushed this ban through the system, they decreed this a matter of public safety. Let me assure you that this was never the intention of the legislation.

While over 4000 dogs have been slaughtered under this law, there are many dogs that are still living in Ontario that fall under this crude definition of "pit bullism". Shelters are sending them out of province and this is not a problem with the government. Those who have never owned a pit bull are allowed to adopt one in Ontario...few questions asked.

If pit bulls were such a threat to humanity, then why are we allowed such freedoms with these "ticking time-bombs"? The answer comes down to politics and public perception. Bryant still uses his "pit bull" ban to make him appear as a "get things done" guy.

I prefer my politicians to enact laws that actually improve public safety. It may take more work and more public education, (and less media hype for the politician), but it will eventually work.
Bryant and McGuinty refused to even look at the system for dogs and dog owners in Calgary.
Calgary can truly boast when it comes to their reduction in dog bites and attacks of all breeds. Enacting working laws such as Calgary did would not have given Bryant the same headlines, granted, so it was not in his interest.

Dog lover or not, take the time to educate yourself on how banning a dog by it's appearance does not make you, your children, your neighbours, your pets or anyone else safer as a result.

OPP discover elaborate indoor marihuana grow op in Apsley

2008-09-23T23:29:00.004-04:00

Crime should be dealt with and I will never debate that. Michael Bryant was in charge of cleaning up crime in Ontario while he was Ontario's Health Minister, but had he of put into action with the same exuberance as he did the Ontario Pit bull ban, we might have seen some results. Instead, he was on a mission of ridding the province of the Pit bull breeds. Crime was not a priority on his list as it should have been.

People do crimes and what they use as weapons is secondary. Guns and dogs when used by the wrong people help them with their activities, but they are not the danger. The criminals are.

To ban dogs or guns will not stop the criminals to obtain them illegally and that is a well known fact.

While the average citizen wouldn't have a clue how to get an illegal weapon or train up a dog for the wrong reasons, desperate, greedy money hungry criminals knows the in and outs of obtaining whatever necessary for them to protect their illegal activities with no barriers.

This story in the Toronto Globe and Mail demonstrates to what actions and extents a hard core criminal will go to extremes for their thirst for greed.

My question is why does the average citizens have to suffer by having their sport taken from them or their dogs when they are not used in the wrong hands. Guns and dogs are respected and with dogs, a part of their family no matter the breed.

OPP discover elaborate indoor marihuana grow op in Apsley
APSLEY, ON
Sept. 23 /CNW

On the morning of September 23, 2008, OPP Central - East Drug Enforcement Section (DES) officers, along with OPP Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU), executed a search warrant at 832 Lasswade Road in Apsley.

A male suspect was found to be living in and guarding an indoor marihuana grow house that was fortified. The suspect was also in possession of five long guns and a large quantity of ammunition. One of the shotguns was located near the area where the suspect was sleeping.

Police also seized and destroyed 932 marihuana plants ready for harvesting and processing. The plants, once processed, would have had a street value of $932,000.

This indoor grow op was located just down the street from where police raided a location on September 9, 2008, where a male suspect was found to be living in and guarding a marihuana grow site and in possession of two, loaded 12-gauge shotguns and two pit bull guard dogs.

In that case, OPP destroyed 11,076 marihuana plants worth $11 million dollars.

"This marihuana grow op was located by the OPP Drug Enforcement Section's Central - East Team, based on information received and follow-up observation," said Detective Staff Sergeant Ken Watson, Central DES Program Manager.

Marihuana grow ops continue to be a significant risk to the public and police in Ontario as police are seeing elaborate booby traps intended to kill or maim, along with persons guarding the grow sites both indoor and outdoor armed with loaded firearms.

"With marihuana production being a multi-billion dollar business in North America, groups will go to all extremes to protect their illegal drug activities. There are also groups known as "pot pirates" who will go to all extremes to steal marihuana which makes the situation even more dangerous for the public and law enforcement agencies," adds Watson.

OPP Drug Enforcement Section continues to be vigilant in investigating marihuana grow ops due to the dangers they pose to police and public safety.

"Our drug enforcement members are very aware of the dangers associated with marihuana grows," said Detective Staff Sergeant Ken Watson.

Police also seized $5,600 cash, a 2006 Honda Accord and approximately $20,000 in grow equipment. The OPP have arrested a male suspect in his early 30's, who is being held at the Peterborough County OPP Detachment until a bail hearing is scheduled. - The investigation is continuing and an update will be forthcoming when available.

For further information: Acting Detective Staff Sergeant Ken Watson,
Program Manager, Central - Drug Enforcement Section,
Phone: Office: (705) 735-4750, Cell: (705) 790-1990

Pit bull law should be overturned

2008-09-22T23:18:00.002-04:00

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=120731

Pit bull law should be overturned

An Ontario Court of Appeal is hearing arguments this week that literally are a matter of life and death. However, because these aren't human lives, many people might not even know it's going on. That, however, doesn't lessen its importance.

The case in question is an effort to have the Ontario government's 2005 legislation that forbids the owning, breeding or selling of pit bulls overturned. Lawyer Clayton Ruby is arguing -- correctly -- that the ban is "unconstitutionally vague,'' and should be sent back to the legislature.

"It is too broad and needs to be struck down,'' he said in court Monday. "It is unclear what was intended to be captured in this legislation.'

In 2005, the province introduced legislation that forbids the owning, breeding or selling of pit bulls. Existing pit bulls were exempt under the ban, but they had to be spayed or neutered and muzzled and leashed in public. The province brought forward the legislation after a string of pit bull attacks.

Ruby also argues the government overreacted and based its decision on a single report -- written by a dog catcher from Ohio.

"They aren't dangerous,'' Ruby argued. ``In Canada, pit bulls are way down the list of dangerous dogs. They make wonderful family pets ... you can't identify how dangerous a dog may be to the public in advance and legislate it.''

In late March, the provincial government claimed victory after the controversial law survived a constitutional challenge. But Ruby, who sought leave to appeal that ruling, argued the legislation is too broad because it bans all dogs that look like pit bulls, thereby painting too many breeds of dogs with the same brush.

Ruby is not only bang on in his arguments, in particular the vagueness of the legislation and the fact it would ban an entire breed of dog because of the actions of a few. Interestingly, the fight against this legislation has received support -- at least quiet support -- from some unusual sources, namely the people required to enforce these laws.

Several humane societies, including the one in nearby Peterborough, have in recent months shipped pit bulls puppies to Quebec in order to avoid having to put them down.

When those who are supposed to enforce laws act against the spirit of the law, you know you have a problem. But while Ruby fights to force the government to legislate sensibly (would that we could all do that more often) the real criminals in cases of pit bull attacks -- the owners -- continue to wander free and unscathed.

While pit bull attacks over recent years have been disturbingly vicious in several cases -- and we don't argue with the need to put down animals that do attack people or even other animals -- the reality is that many more pit bulls live as beloved family pets than commit horrendous crimes.

However it boggles the mind that the government could decide to legislate against an entire breed -- in effect pit bull genocide -- because of the actions of a few dogs. It is similar in concept to the federal long gun registry -- penalize all gun owners for the acts of a few -- but in this case the government decided to kill innocent animals, not just fine innocent hunters. It is all about appearing to do something rather than actually doing something -- and in this case it is costing lives.

Ironically, the Liberal government got it right with its street racing legislation -- yank the owner's licence and tow the car immediately -- which firmly put the blame on the driver, no matter whose vehicle it is.

Similar legislation would also be appropriate in dealing with owners of all violent dogs: charge them with a crime, get the dog away from them, and stop them from owning dogs for a period of time, say five years. At the end of that time, put limitations and restrictions on them owning dogs, including requiring them to be subject to random checks on how they are caring for their animals. Of course this approach is sensible and addresses the problem -- bad dog owners -- rather than being sensational and making it appear the government is actually doing something.

Maybe the Liberal government doesn't care about legislation that is immoral and ineffective because it's not as if a lot of voters care. But we think people should care and we hope Clayton Ruby can force the government to take back its cruel and inhuman legislation and replace it with something that makes sense. He certainly has our support.

Article ID# 1207316

When is Freedom of Speech not upheld in Canada

2008-09-22T19:28:00.005-04:00

Canadians are proud that they are a country to express their views openly and honestly without any discrimination or back lash from government or the police. We don't fear jail, torture or any injustices as some other countries do.

Personally, I've never given this freedom much mind unless I hear how men and women have been jailed and on death row due to speaking out in battle torn countries, where they must take care to what they say. Fearful people ready to be shot or hung because they disagree openly against their leaders and laws. They build an underground railroad ready to fight and die to make changes...but not in Canada. We are the land of the free...or...so I thought.

I've built this blog to express my opinions and beliefs about BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) and why I believe it to be wrong. I put the blame on Michael Bryant, who didn't care about statistics and educational advice from experts in the fields. His sole purpose was to make Ontario a province of the Pit bull breeds extinction and has spoken and encouraged with his faulty logic to other countries and provinces to do the same. Him, Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party banned together when they held the most seats in Parliament and ruled in the ban making it the very first of it's kind in North America, while the other parties apposed it and stated there were other options that could be considered. The majority won of course and millions of innocent dogs fell to their death. Murdered without cause all because of breed.

You must wonder, she's told us all this already and what does this have to do with freedom of speech?

After a lengthy illness and not seeming to pull myself out of it, in August my brother and Mom decided to kidnap myself, Shasta and even my cat, Enok to give me a time to totally relax without any real responsibilities other than day to day living. It took me a good week to finally let go and just enjoy myself. We went camping, fishing, (though I confess I didn't catch anything), but it was relaxing, beautiful and the bombardment of raccoons, exciting.

Back at Mom's, it was shopping if we wanted or just looking around. If I felt like staying in, I did that too. Shasta made friends with the dogs that came out every day at the same time of night and I loved watching her enjoy herself even though she was the only one leashed and muzzled. Before our holidays, I felt guilty that she was all work and no play, so to watch her finally have fun socializing gave me a feeling of gratitude.

We didn't return home until September, but even then Mom stayed here for three weeks with me and I really enjoyed our company together. Even though we got a lot accomplished with my apartment, it didn't seem like work with the three of us working together, Shasta included.

During this time, I decided to get on my Facebook and let all know I was back and what I had done, but to my surprise my Facebook was closed down due to offending the Liberal party, especially during an up-coming election.

It takes a lot to get kicked out of Facebook. I know this as I wanted Facebook to warn a young female teenager that was posing sexily with her full name, address and telephone number the dangers of lurkers and sex addicts. I couldn't because she didn't do anything wrong as to the rules of Facebook. It had to be specifically directed towards me in order for me to place any kind of complaint or warning for them to even look into.

My freedom of speech on Facebook was dismantled without warning. I never received a warning and with a blink of an eye, I was gone.

It makes me grin that I, 5 foot 0 inches, 90 pounds, disabled woman, am a threat to the Liberals that they would find me and have me gone all because of my views. That what I speak on could possible make a difference in the election that they needed to silence me in a venue such as Facebook.

I wonder, perhaps it's time for Shasta to join the Facebook world and express herself. What do you think?! ;)

2 charged with animal cruelty

2008-06-12T15:22:00.003-04:00

As cruel and appalling the condition of this dog was that it's only mercy would be euthanization, I bet this couple get a small fine compared to the deed and not allowed animals for a 2 year term. Basically, a slap on the wrist.

Ontario, has the weakest laws towards animal cruelty in all of Canada. The Humane Societies hands are tied when it comes to the lack of concern from the government and sometimes has to return animals back to the original owners after a certain time.

It doesn't make sense, but then what does with a government like we have that doesn't care about frivolous things like animals. It's all about taking the all mighty dollar away from the poor and taxing us to death that is important to them.

2 charged with animal cruelty
By THE CHRONICLE-JOURNAL
Thursday, June 12, 2008

Two Thunder Bay residents were charged Wednesday with animal cruelty for allegedly failing to provide suitable care for an older pitbull-type dog that had be euthanized.

When the dog was removed from their Northwood-area residence on May 22 after a concerned citizen alerted investigators, it was “very, very emaciated and dehydrated” and had to be put down the same day, said Ontario SPCA inspector Dagmara Cieslik.

“It was in extremely poor conditon. The dog was examined by a veterinarian and it was found to be in such a state where it could not be brought to better health,” Cieslik said.

She said humane society and veterinary staff were shocked by the dog‘s condition.

“I think this is probably one of the worst ones I‘ve seen and I‘ve been working for the humane society for almost 10 years,” she said. “It was a very extreme case. The vet was just appalled.”

The accused are to appear in court June 30.