Imagine the Attorney General of Ontario sees some news stories about red cars involved in accidents.Imagine that he notices that the news media seems to cover more stories about red cars being involved in accidents than any other car colour.Now imagine that he speaks to a mechanic who says that red cars are involved in more accidents than any other colour.The AG might decide to pass a law banning red cars.
If you currently own a red car, you can keep it under the new law, but you will face restrictions.You will have to specially license your red car with the Province and place a decal indicating this on the windshield.You will have to put a limiter on it to prevent it from reaching a speed above 50 kmh.You will only be allowed to drive it in approved areas and will have to put a special light on it so that at night when it isn’t obvious that your car is red, other drivers, pedestrians and police will be able to identify it as a red car.You will have to pay a higher insurance premium, and you will have to wear a helmet at all times when driving it.
Absolutely no new red cars will be allowed in the Province.No exceptions will be granted for visitors, tourists, those travelling through the Province on their way somewhere else or new residents.Anyone with an unregistered red car will be subject to fines and possible jail time, a criminal record, and the car will be crushed.If your car is substantially similar to a red car - that is, it might not be candy apple red, but maybe your brown car has a red hue to it, is orange leaning toward red, or it might have red trim on it – it can be identified as a red car by a police officer and impounded and crushed if not registered.It is up to you to prove your car is not red.
Now remember in this scenario, the only evidence the AG used to introduce this new law is that the media seemed to be reporting a number of accidents involving red cars, and he spoke to one person he considered an expert.At the public hearings for this law, imagine there is opposition.Insurance experts, other mechanics, experts in the collision industry inform the AG that the proposed law is flawed, because statistical evidence and expert opinion don’t support the hypothesis that red cars are involved in more accidents than any other colour.Auto makers are there too, and they inform the lawmakers that their red cars have the same features as cars of other colour, and that banning red cars will not make Ontarians any safer, and that instead laws need to be in place to prevent aggressive and dangerous driving in any colour of car, and that those laws need to have harsh penalties and must be enforced.There are also coroner’s inquest reports available at the hearings, with recommendations from previous auto accidents from all types of cars that recommend safe driving education programs as a key part of the solution to the problem of auto accidents.Owners of red cars are there, testifying to how responsible they are as drivers of their red cars, explaining that the vast majority of red car drivers are working people with families and that are not all red car drivers are aggressive young drivers, street racers or people who drive under the influence.
Now imagine that the AG and the government push the law through anyway, stating that they believe that red cars are a colour apart, and that it is in the best interest of the safety of Ontarians to ban them.They ban all red cars and don’t implement any safe driving education.They ignore the multitude of experts who oppose their idea in favour of listening to one who supports it.
As ridiculous as this is, it is very similar to what happened in Ontario with DOLA. Only dogs, unlike cars, are members of the family, with feelings. They notice when forced to wear a muzzle or when they are taken from their owners and held in prisons while their fate is decided. They miss the freedom they previously had to be a normal dog. They are living beings.
Not only that, but the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that something as flimsy as media reports can be used as reasoned apprehension of harm.
What this ruling has done has been to make the Ontario Government believe that they can ban anything they like.What will be next?My husband said today, only half joking, that we’d better hope the Ontario AG isn’t intimidated by three hundred pound men with more muscle than him, or he might ban those too even though they aren’t a threat to him. He was only half joking because how could the Ontario Government shock us any more than they have with how this boondoggle of an overly broad, overly vague, overly crazy law?It’s 2008.Appearance should not be a factor in lawmaking.Ontario missed that memo I guess.
So with the stroke of a pen, three years ago, rights were taken from Ontario’s dog owners.Now apparently Ontario’s government can take away more rights if it likes.All it needs is a few media stories and a determination to do the wrong thing.
All dog owners beware.When the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Dog Owner’s Liability Act, it also brought back the portions of the law that had been struck in the lower court ruling.Why does this matter to all dog owners?The substantially similar clause has been reinstated.
If you have an unregistered or mixed breed dog with short hair consider moving.At the turn of an Animal Control Officer’s head, your dog could be misidentified as a “pitbull”.The onus is then on you to prove that it isn’t. How do you prove that it isn’t if it isn’t registered as something else?You can’t. While you argue your case your dog will be impounded as though it were no more significant than an inanimate object.If you lose, your dog will be killed.One dog in Mississauga was in a 4’ by 3’ kennel for over nine months, more than half of his life, while his fate was decided.He was allowed fifteen minutes of socialization per day for nine months.This is one case, but there are many.In many cases, the dogs do not resemble at all any of the three rare, purebred dogs that are banned, not to an educated eye.The fourth banned breed is non existent.
If you own a Boxer, Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Vizsla, Pointer, Bullmastiff, Rottweiler, Doberman, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Catahoula, Chesapeake Bay Retriever, American Bulldog, Olde English Bulldog, Bull Terrier, Great Dane or a Lab mix be especially worried.Add to that Australian Cattle Dog mixes, Jack Russell mixes.Any dog with short hair and an athletic appearance could be misidentified.Any dog with a head that isn’t as narrow and pointed as a Collie could be targeted.Ironically I watched my husband get attacked by a Collie on the face and throat.He was extremely lucky to live, and needed an ambulance and a lot of stitches. If I were uneducated about dogs, I might jump to the conclusion based on my anecdotal evidence that all Collies are unpredictable and dangerous, but I know better.Incidentally it also didn’t make any news stories since it was a Collie, even though it was quite a serious attack.
If you think that your dog doesn’t look anything like any of the three banned purebred dogs, think again:Animal Control Officers have proven time and time again that their breed identification skills are weak at best.Add to this that you should be worried anyway, since when three breeds and anything that looks like it might be mixed with one are banned, it’s just as easy to add a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, and so on.
The truth is, this isn’t even about dogs. It’s about rights.I agree with those who say that they have the right to be safe from dog attacks, but safe from any dog attack, not certain breeds.Breed bans actually do a disservice to victims of bites by other breeds.Yes we need responsible dog ownership laws, fines, even jail time if warranted.Not breed bans.Good people, family people are being punished.Good dogs, family dogs, are being persecuted and killed, while idiot owners go out and get other breeds and are still idiot owners, and it’s somewhat important to note that even if that doesn’t bother you, giving up rights should.Allowing warrantless search and seizure should.
Discrimination based on appearance is wrong, plain and simple.There are so many myths about these breeds, but physiologically they are just dogs.So put aside your preconceived notions and stand up for rights in your province, and tell your government you want them to stop killing puppies.
Here we go again people, for those who wished they had known about this in New Brunswick:
At the 2008 Annual General Meeting of the New Brunswick Veterinary Medical Association, the majority of members passed a motion. This motion stated that it would be considered unprofessional conduct for a veterinarian in New Brunswick to perform cosmetic surgery on any animal, effective March 28, 2009.
This includes:
Tail docking in dogs, horses, and cows.
Tail nicking and setting in horses.
Ear cropping in dogs.
Declawing in species other than domestic cats.
Here's your notice!
It has been brought to our attention that the Cosmetic Surgery Issue will be on the PEIVMA agenda for discussion at their upcoming Annual General Meeting Nov 1, 2008. Please be proactive and take the time to write and voice your concerns.
Contact Information:
PEI Veterinary Medical Association The Farm Centre Building 420 University Avenue Charlottetown, PE C1A 7Z5
The situation in New Brunswick has become much more serious than anticipated. All were led to believe (even Breeder Vets who were at the meeting) that they could still do dew claws/tails on their own puppies. At the beginning of this week, breeders were informed by the Animal Protection Officer that if such procedures are done within the province, they will investigate and charges under the Criminal Code could ensue.
Please take the time to help. It has been less than a month since this began in New Brunswick and it is already starting to spread.
The details in this article were posted with permission.
Just when you think things can't get any further from the common sense factor, they do.
Let's recap the week.
Tuesday Oct 24 Mississauga formally announced they have changed policy toward enforcement of the ban. Animal control in Mississauga, population 650,000 people and it is Canada's sixth largest city. It is also worth noting it is the riding of Bob Delaney (Fiberal MPP who chaired the committee hearings for the ban). It is worth reading back through the Hansard for committee hearings to refresh your memory. 102 presentations, 86 opposed the ban.
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.
Worth noting this is Premier McGunity's riding.
Same day, Oct 24, 2008 the decision is released from the appellate court not only denying our appeal but allowing the cross appeal from the government side reinstating what was struck in the initial decision by Justice Thea Herman.
So Ontario continues to ban a breed that does not exist, as well as three rare breeds that do exist, and anything that is substantially similar to those breeds. Substantially similar. If you own a dog with short hair, I'd consider moving if you like your dog. Only where to? What Province might next pass an unnecessary law, which by the way some municipalities refuse to even enforce because it's so convoluted and ridiculous?
I guess I still can't go home. This ruling proves once again that the media truly is the largest powerholder in our country. To have the bill introduced on a rash of unbalanced media coverage. To have that coverage viewed in the same manner as numerical data would be viewed in both the legislature and in the court system. Wow, that's an amazing gain of power for the media.
Visit http://caveat.blogware.com/ for a great article on this decision. I can't say it any better, and I am, quite frankly, too depressed at the moment to even try.
There's a good article in the Ottawa Citizen today (thanks to Lori for sending it along).
It explains why the City of Ottawa, our nation's capital, is ignoring the provincial ban on the much-mythologized but nonexistent 'pit bull' type of dog.
Provincially banned canines common in Ottawa
Officials will act against dangerous animals, but lack resources to enforce law
Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, 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.
According to this report, 300 calls have been received about purported 'pit bulls' since January, 2006, which averages to about 10 per month. This sounds like a lot of calls until we discover that Ottawa averages 7,000 calls a year for animal-related issues, about 200 for dog bites. The author points out that many of these calls are from 'pit bull' type owners seeking some clarification of the vague legislation enacted by Chicken Little Bryant in 2005. So, out of 17,500 calls since January 2006, 300, or 1.7%, related to 'pit bull' inquiries. Per the norm, we see that 98.3% of all calls to animal control do not involve 'pit bull' types.
The article goes on to explain that the law is unenforceable and that the costs involved in court battles make enforcement fiscally irresponsible. The average case against a dog owner in Ontario is putting between $75 - 100,000 on the taxpayers' tab.
Speaking of court battles, I wonder how much the Attorney General has wasted in defending the law in court for the past two-and-a-half years? It's a deep, dark secret since they are not responding to information requests, even from other MPPs. I'll ballpark it at about $10 million. If the MAG would like to prove me wrong, feel free, but I know how much money governments waste, since they don't have to worry about keeping costs under control.
The piece points out that a lot of complaints are from people who are afraid of 'pit bulls'. Well, duh. The intensity of the 20-year propaganda campaign has to be having some effect, even on people who know how media play their little games.
Add to that the fact that what media hysterics have been doing is actually advertising 'pit bull' type dogs as being the baddest asses on the canine block, and the result is that a certain type of person will go out of their way to get one of these slavering beasts to parade in front of their fearful (and sadly, ignorant) neighbours. Bummer that they rarely, if ever, live up to their penny-dreadful reputation, eh?
It's a classic chicken-and-egg scenario.
We can see that Bryant's replacement, Chris Bentley, is still serving the Kool Aid to his base of fearful ninnies (and obviously imbibing himself):
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.
Bentley seems almost proud of the fact that thousands of innocent domestic dogs have been killed by the McGuinty government solely because his histrionic gasbag of a predecessor reacted to a situation he knew jack about, plunging innocent citizens who love dogs into a waking nightmare.
I guess he doesn't realize that the lead counsel for the MAG defending the ban in court in May, 2006, said at the end that they would 'take out the jail time, your Honour, and make it so that the vets have to come in to testify'. Too late, Charney, we don't make deals with those who blithely install terror in the province of Ontario for no reason other than to grab a few headlines and bask in teh unrelenting stupid that ensues. I wonder if Bentley also knows that the same lawyer stated emphatically at the Remedy hearing that 'there is no such thing as a pit bull', that the 'purpose of the law wasn't to stop dog bites' and that 'it was the purebreds we were after, we only threw in the substantially similar [in physical appearance] clause in case somebody had a purebred and lied about it.'
Speaking of lying.
Let's hope that nightmare ends soon. Today would be good.
I think you are all acquainted with the Rambo case in Mississauga, where the dog went for a harmless romp last Christmas Day and wound up in the pound.
Hot on the heels of Rambo was another example of profiling in Mississauga. I guess the AC department didn't learn their lesson with the Rambo case that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'pitbull' and breed standards cannot be used to identify breed/s of dogs.
The couple profiled in the latest case in Mississauga brought to light a whole new angle not thought of before. The dogs owner/s are a registered nurse and health care worker. One of the requirements of the nursing college is that any conviction for an offence that could involve jail time, even if the defendant receives a discharge, must be reported to the licensing body.
Thanks so much to Caveat for keeping us up to date on the Mississauga situation. Many thanks to John Stewart at Mississauga News for your accurate articles. Thanks very much to Carolyn Parrish for standing on the side of the dog owners in Ontario.
Purpose: to raise awareness for "pit bull" type dogs and their responsible owners
Where: Coronation Park (Lakeshore Blvd West between Strachan and Bathhurst)
Contact for further details: Debbie Black at rockapuppy @ yahoo.ca (no spaces)
Please give generously to the legal fund. We will be graciously accepting donations at the event. We need your financial help to overturn the ban. We are currently waiting on a decision from the court of appeal.
I apologize for the length of time that has passed since your request for information.
I am including the press release regarding the cosmetic surgery bylaw. This bylaw was voted on and passed at our recent Annual General Meeting.
Veterinarians, if reported to be in violation of the bylaw, could be subject to complaint and discipline within our Act and Bylaws.
Sincerely,
George Whittle
Executive Director/Registrar
NBVMA
Here is the press release which was attached:
At the 2008 Annual General Meeting of the New Brunswick Veterinary Medical Association, the majority of members passed a motion. This motion stated that it would be considered unprofessional conduct for a veterinarian in New Brunswick to perform cosmetic surgery on any animal, effective March 28, 2009.
This includes:
Tail docking in dogs, horses, and cows.
Tail nicking and setting in horses.
Ear cropping in dogs.
Declawing in species other than domestic cats.
Our national body (the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association) opposes surgical alteration of any animal for purely cosmetic purposes. The NBVMA believes that veterinarians of NB should take a strong stance against antiquated breed standards and traditions, and be advocates for animal welfare by stopping the practice of cosmetic surgery by veterinarians.
Personally, I find it really interesting that ear cropping and tail docking were lumped together, but even more interesting that declawing was lumped in with those. The procedures differ vastly from one another. They were voted on as one group, not individual procedures, and I suspect that's one of the reasons the vote was apparently close. I asked Mr. Whittle for numbers, but he did not oblige.
To dissect this NBVMA statement, I do take issue that the idea that "it would be considered unprofessional conduct for a veterinarian in New Brunswick to perform cosmetic surgery on any animal". I personally feel that as business owners, veterinarians should have the choice as to what types of procedures they will perform, as long as they are performed in safe ways. Veterinarians, by the time they are practising, have ample training and are certainly trusted to make lifesaving decisions regularly so I would assume that their training is adequate. Yet they can't be trusted by their peers to use their best judgement about the procedures they will perform? This has to be regulated by their Association? This seems odd.
I also take issue with the statement that the veterinarians will be "advocates for animal welfare by stopping the practice of cosmetic surgery by veterinarians." Advocates for animal welfare? By stopping legitimate, responsible breeders who spend more time, effort and money on showing, health testing and other veterinary care on their breeding stock than they will ever see back in the sale of puppies from having safe, cosmetic surgery performed on their animals? I'm not sure that this is the best way in which veterinarians can take a stand on animal welfare. How about taking a stand against pet stores that sell dogs from puppy mills instead? Or offering low cost spay and neuter so that lower income pet owners can spay and neuter their animals?
I work with dogs. I know that veterinarians see what I see: Dogs that are truly neglected or not cared for. Dogs with teeth rotting out of their skulls and causing horrible illness. Matted dogs, underweight dogs, obese dogs, dogs who aren't being treated for things, even those which are simple to treat. Parasites, skin conditions, joint problems, etc. Dogs whose owners refuse to take good care of them, feeling that providing some food (wholesome or not) and water and in some cases absolutely minimal shelter is enough. Dogs from puppy mills or pet stores with social problems and serious health problems. Seeing these things, I just find it terribly difficult to believe that this is the best way in which the NBVMA is can take a stance on animal welfare. By some veterinarians telling other veterinarians what procedures they can and cannot perform? Taking the choice to have a cosmetic procedure safely performed which the dog will recover from quickly with no ill after effects away from breeders who test their breeding stock for genetic eye problems, hip,elbow, cardiac, thyroid and more? I have to ask, why are veterinarians picking on the breeders, and those veterinarians who choose to offer those services?
I have to wonder if the next logical step is to then make it against the regulations to perform artificial inseminations or other reproductive services as they are not necessary to the animal's survival? This would be an inconvenience for many dog breeders, but devastating for cattle farmers.
Remember that spaying and neutering are also elective surgeries, as I said in my last article on this topic, and yet these surgeries are routine practice and often done with little or no discussion of the risks and benefits of the surgical procedure.
I think the Veterinary Associations, both the NBVMA and the CVMA need to carefully consider the difference in animal rights versus animal welfare and the direction they are taking. I think that they also need to include responsible breeders in their dialogue on these topics: Don't breeders deserve that considering how much money they spend at veterinarian offices?
I heard from a dear friend Marsha this morning. Marsha, her husband Stephen and her "new guy" Monk have been busy in NYC.
I had to share with you the accomplishments of Marsha's shelter work through Wally's World. This past week was "Wally's Week" in NYC. In co-operation with the NY ASPCA they have drawn attention to and given incentive to potential adopters to get dogs homes.
According to Marsha, she and Stephen hooked up with the Mayor's Alliance for NY Animals and gave out 200 adoption bags to the ASPCA, Animal Care and Control, Bideawee and Animal Haven - all shelters that are either no-kill or have that goal. Sponsors for the adoption bags included PetValu stores and Wellness/Old Mother Hubbard foods and treats.
Marsha thinks what they have done so far in NY is fantastic. They have low-cost spay-neuter vans, feral cat programs to trap spay and release, socialization programs for shelter dogs etc. She is quite impressed.
In educating the people of NYC about the in's and out's of the situation here in Ontario, it woke them up. Now the ASPCA nationally wants to partner with Marsha and take Wally's Weeks to their strategic cities - starting with Tampa on Nov. 15.
Marsha described the tour of the facility:
The tour of the ASPCA facility was worth the price of admission. What a joint. No animal smell at all. Well-lit, pens for animals to socialize, great vet unit, just amazing. They are no-kill and take animals whose time is up from the government-run Animal Care and Control. All of the shelters affiliated with the Mayor's Allicance work with rescue groups and it seems much less "competitive" than I think it was before. One reason is that Maddie's Fund has kicked in $27 million to help New York City achieve the no-kill goal - nothing like a whack of dough to start people playing nicely. The thing is that it works. The majority of the dogs available for adoption at the ASPCA were "pit bulls" - and all of them were destined to find a good home. It broke my heart to know that in Ontario those same dogs would have been summarily killed unless they were smuggled out of the province.
I feel the need to focus on something positive, and give credit where credit is due.
Back in 2006, Calgary created a new law in response to concerns about pet issues. The law is called the Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, which in itself is a great improvement over Animal Control Bylaw, as they are called in most municipalities. According to the City of Calgary's website:
"Under the Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw both cat and dog owners are responsible for licensing their pets and for ensuring that they remain on the owner's property or, when off the property, under the owner's control. By using the term "animal" rather than "cat" or "dog" the new bylaw addresses cat and dog owners equitably and helps alter the perception that cats are not as valuable as dogs."
Calgary has, in a very creative and well thought out move, provided some incentives for timely licensing and renewal: I found this on their website for example "So far, so good: 1,489 free six-month licences registered, 7,874 expired licences renewed without penalty or backdating, and 691 retractable dog leashes given to dog owners with current pet licences. These statistics reflect Calgarians' overwhelming support of The City of Calgary Animal Services' dog and cat licensing campaign. For more information phone 3-1-1, watch our licensing video (4.1 MB) or come to Animal Services at 2201 Portland Street SE. "
So often the education piece of the solution to societal problems is missing with governments, but not with Calgary. Also available to view online is their dog bite prevention brochure:
Kudos to Calgary for taking a multi-faceted approach to animal control issues. The best part is, this combined approach is working, and is being tweaked to work even better.
The Calgary Sun reported today that:
"The city's community and protective services committee next week will be asked to tweak the responsible pet ownership bylaw, imposing new fines as well as setting up provisions asking judges to prevent owners of vicious dogs from owning another animal in Calgary.
Bylaw boss Bill Bruce said the city wants to make sure parks and pathways are as safe as they can be and that means making sure dog owners take their responsibilities seriously.
"We've got the best vicious dog bylaw in North America and it's going to get tighter," he said.
"A dog's aggression is a product of its owner, not the dog, and we need to break that cycle." "
I happened to catch a news story this morning interviewing Richard Paquette from the Greater Sudbury Animal Control. Greater Sudbury animal control shelter has now adopted a no kill policy. Kudos to the Greater Sudbury community.
I thought it was important to help spread the word this is achievable and success comes easier and quicker when the community pulls together to make policy work. The Greater Sudbury animal control services are a separate entity from the OSPCA.
In an excerpt from the article;
Last year, animal control impounded 637 stray dogs, said Paquette, and 49 were euthanized. Even though the city is adopting a no-kill policy for dogs, some canines may still have to be put down because of bad behaviour or temperament, or due to illness.
Last year, animal control impounded 917 cats and euthanized 399 of them. The number of cat adoptions is up, said Paquette, but the total number of cats being picked up is staggering.
Here is a link to a success story incorporating the TNR program (trap/neuter/release for cats) among other successful implementations.
(4.1 MB) or come to Animal Services at 2201 Portland Street SE. "