A big shout out to DLCC member Laurie Roseborough and her dog Thor, for getting some much needed dog bite prevention education out there. Laurie was at the Vineland Public School, in Niagara region this week.
Dog Trainer Laurie Roseborough (left), her Doberman pinscher Thor, and
Lincoln Community Policing Committee member Audrey Konkle showed
Lincoln Public School students how to act safely around dogs last
Tuesday. In an article in Niagara This Week, Laurie explains what children should do if they are approached by a threatening dog.
Vineland Public School students learned how to approach dogs and avoid
dog attacks last Tuesday as part of an awareness project organized by
Lincoln Community Policing.
“We wanted to get these presentations in before the summer,” said community policing volunteer Audrey Konkle.
In
the first of two groups, about 100 children from junior kindergarten to
Grade 3 were taught how to react if a dog chases them.
“Never,
ever run,” dog trainer Laurie Roseborough told the students, who were
excited by the presence of Roseborough’s well-trained and calm Doberman
pinscher, Thor.
“If a dog tries to chase you and you run away, you become a target,” she said.
“You just caused a chase game.”
Instead
of running, Roseborough taught students how to “be a tree” by standing
straight and still, with hands clasped and head down.
“As long as you stay calm and still, that dog is going to go away,” she said.
The
children could also “be a rock” by tucking into a ball, face-down on
the ground, a position that should be used if a dog knocks you off your
bike, said Roseborough.
There have been several kicks to the teeth in Denver. We certainly know the feeling; but hopefully this will pave the way to overturning the ban in Denver.
The American Kennel Club® is pleased to announce that United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Sonya Dias, Hillary Engel, and Sheryl White in their appeal challenging
the constitutionality of the Denver breed ban. This ruling reverses the
United States District Court of Colorado’s 2007 dismissal of the suit.
To read the rest of the article from the AKC website click here.
Another constitutional challenge launched against the McGuinty Liberals.
There have actually been several cases launched (in addition to our own) against the McGuinty Liberals for discrimination. Now there is a research project for a high school or university project. How many constitutional challenges have been launched compared to other sitting governments? Off the top of my head, the autistic parents of Ontario launched a case last year.. There have been others as well, I just don't have the inclination at this point to go looking. I just thought I would bring this to your attention so you don't get that lonely feeling that you are the only one who has had your rights stripped away on a whim at the hands of the incompetent government of this province.
TORONTO – Ontario is discriminating against disabled students in
private, faith-based schools by refusing to fund certain ailments, say
a group of parents who have launched a constitutional challenge against
the McGuinty Liberal government.
According to the Star this will be a huge "blow" to the Ontario Fiberals. The "B" word is one I have been using for quite some time but not quite in the same context... Unfortunately for Toronto and the rest of Ontario, he will be "trying" to build our economy by luring new business to Toronto. I don't know, is it just me? I find Bryant about as luring as a rattle snake. Charm and finesse are not adjectives that would apply to this crazed, monosyllabic, nutcase.
The Star describes him as;
An "in-your-face," activist minister, who is
popular with the media for his communications' savvy and pithy sound
bites.
Figures that the media trogs would find him "popular".
Here is a quote from just last week in Bryant's speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto;
"It's preposterous to imagine that government in this century
or the last century is not the most impactful institution in our day-to-day
lives, outside of the family."
Savvy? Pithy? + Crazy? Socialist?
To leave you with some of those "popular" sound bites Bryant became so hated well known for:
Banned, banned, banned...."pitbulls" banned!
We will crush your car!
The internet is like letting your children walk down a dark alley in Toronto at night!
Statements that spike my blood pressure every time I think about Bryant muttering the words. There are many more but I won't get into it since I am now making a camomile tea to calm down..
If he dare try to step back into politics with aspirations of premier, Ontarians who think he is savvy or popular better get off the kool-aid.
The premier of this province, Dalton McGunity has a nickname that some of us (not so fondly) refer to him as. Nanny McFee! We in Ontario are sick to death of being nannied.
This week Michael Bryant, Minister of Economic "disaster" not Development, delivered a disturbing speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto which is a forum to hear trailblazers in politics, business, social
development and the media over lunch.
This week, he attracted a lot of them by telling the Canadian Club of Toronto
what he's actually been saying for some time -- that governments need to decide
which businesses will succeed and which will fail and invest taxpayers' money --
he's starting with $2 billion in Ontario -- in the successful ones.
In a follow up article A 'liberal' state of mind, there are several excerpts from Bryant's speech but this particular one confirms what we have been saying all along.
When referring to Bryant;
What he said was: "It's preposterous to imagine that government in this century
or the last century is not the most impactful institution in our day-to-day
lives, outside of the family,"
Is that not just another way of saying we are your big brother. We are here to nanny you all to death since you cannot seem to make the correct (the 'liberal's' version) choices for yourself.
Or as the author of the article says;
In other words, since, save for the family, the modern liberal state has more
impact on individuals (i.e. "in our day-to-day lives") than anything else, it's
a logical and just extension of the state's power that it should use public
money to pick which businesses succeed and which fail in the marketplace, for
the greater social good.
Ah, but the Nanny McFee Fiberals cannot stop at deciding which businesses will succeed and fail in the marketplace, but they also will dictate what type of dog you should own, food you should eat, where you can smoke (when they still sell you the cigarettes), and on and on and on... I guess we are all to stupid to make these critical choices in our own lives. The government, who according to Bryant is "part of the family".
Well not in my family!McGuinty, Bryant and the rest of you sob sisters can consider yourselves officially disowned. You have never been and never will be part of my family or my keeper/nanny whatever the hell you fancy yourself as!
I have to reprint the last section of the article. The author portrays this depiction so well.
For those inclined to explore such issues and their implications for society,
I highly recommend The Liberal Mind -- The Psychological Causes of Political
Madness -- by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., an MD and general and forensic
psychiatrist, who has testified as an expert in thousands of American civil and
criminal cases.
Rossiter argues modern liberalism leads to political madness, because it
seeks to override the individual's psychological need for freedom, in the name
of social engineering.
As Rossiter diagnoses it: "This bias is destructive to the ideals of liberty
and social order and to the growth of the individual to adult competence.
"Instead of promoting a rational society of competent adults who solve the
problems of living through voluntary co-operation, the modern liberal agenda
creates an irrational society of child-like adults who depend upon governments
to take care of them. In its ongoing efforts to collectivize society's basic
economic, social and political processes, the liberal agenda undermines the
character traits essential for individual liberty, material security, voluntary
co-operation and social order."
Randy Hillier is MPP in the riding of the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington. Randy's common sense approach is refreshing. Randy would like to see restoration of freedom in Ontario and as he puts it "get this province back on track".
I just spoke with Randy on the phone. I wanted to thank him for taking a firm stand, if elected as PC leader, to work toward repealing the ban. Check out Randy's website where he discusses repealing the ban here.
He agrees that all dogs can bite and irresponsible owners must be dealt with. He takes a strong stance in favour of citizens of Ontario. He told me he ran to represent his riding because he wants to make a difference. He says people cannot make a change by hanging on the couch, they must participate in our democracy and get active.
Please consider joining the Ontario PC party and making a donation to Randy's campaign. You can do so by clicking on this link to his home page. You will see a bold JOIN NOW. Membership is 10.00 for the year and you will be eligible to vote in the upcoming Ontario PC leadership race. You must join by Thursday May 14th. The voting will conclude Thursday June 25th.
Please make sure you make a comment showing your support or email Randy a note of encouragement.
The official press release hit the press yesterday. We have filed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The public opinion was always in our favor but change has tipped even more in our favor since 2005. We see evidence of it at every event we attend (of which we have done or attended over 200 events since 2004). The overwhelming public opinion is firmly behind us and we hope the SCC will see through this piece of crap and overturn the law.
People are gobsmacked that the Liberals chose to ignore common sense alternatives and instead threw responsible dog owners under the bus and caused an onslaught of death to now over 5000 dogs since enactment.
And they're off! The official campaign for a May 12th election in BC was kicked off yesterday.
Time to activate the dog owners of BC! Beware BC, a whole lot of dog owners have moved to BC looking for common sense since all has been lost in Ontario since McGuinty became Premier Nanny of Ontariostan. You can also bet the dog owners of BC have been watching the BS going on here, as in BSL (breed specific legislation), and won't be allowing it in Beautiful British Columbia.
Unfortunately, pit bulls have three strikes against them:
1.When they bite, they don't easily let go and the damage to their victim is almost always severe.
2.
They scare the hell out of people. Yellow Lab walks down the street
with its owner and people smile. Pit bull walks down the street with
its owner and people cross the street.
3. They don't attract
quality owners. That's not to say all pit bull owners are questionable
pet owners, just that an inordinate number of questionable pet owners
are attracted to pit bulls.
This information contained in the article must be a misprint?
The 3 strikes are:
1. The media trogs who love to propagandize and hype poor old 'pitbulls'.
2. Build fear in the uneducated based on the propaganda campaign spanning over the past couple decades.
3. Single out an easy target (dog owners who own a fictitious breed of dog) and activate like minded trogs.
Listen up trogs.
Here is the deal. Cut the crap. It is getting real old.
Fact #1 There is no such thing as a 'pitbull'. It is a slang term for a shape or type of dog. One of the most common mutts you see on the streets of Manytown Canada. Since the purebreds that are the usual typecast target are so ridiculously rare, it is unlikely there is any bull or terrier in any of these short haired mutts. Who knows for sure and who cares since a dog is a dog is a dog.
Fact #2 There is NO science to back up your statement that any dog has a "worse" bite or any dog is capable of a more "severe" bite than another. The bite pressure thing is BS. Science proves that; and yes I can back it up. The locking jaw is BS and yes I can back that up too. Can you back up your statement?
Fact #3 Yellow Labs are as capable of tearing your face off as any other dog. The reason people may cross the street when they see a supposed "pitbull" coming toward them is one of several reasons. They know nothing about dogs and cannot decipher the difference is in the training/socialization the owner has provided for the dog. They have an irrational fear of dogs based on believing the media propaganda for the past couple decades. This is a dangerous ledge to walk on. If Mr. Lab owner is a moron and hasn't socialized or trained his dog properly, and Mr. Short Haired Mutt of unknown lineage is also coming toward you but has trained and socialized his dog properly, your chances of losing your fact to Mr. Lab is exponentially greater than losing your face to Mr. Short Haired Mutt. You have just created the right climate for people uneducated about dogs to risk their safety based on BS rather than common sense. For what? Hype? Drama? What exactly is the point of the propaganda campaign?
Fact #4 The typical owner of a short haired mutt (what people LOVE to refer to as a "pitbull") are middle aged, well educated women; however they can come in all shapes and forms.
I am a white, middle-aged female. I am a wife, I am a mother. I do not show dogs. I do not breed dogs. I only own rescued animals. I'm a liberal and a registered voter.
And now I'm really pissed off.
The statement that there is an attraction for "questionable owners" to be attracted to a certain type or breed of dog is an assumption, not something that is a fact. Nice try though. The person who thought that up must have been bullied as a child?
Well BC candidates. You better be putting on your thinking caps and keeping your ear to the ground. Dog owners are hip to this crap and BC won't be falling into the same depths of denial we fell into here in Ontario. The thought that we were smarter than breed bans or thinking that our government wouldn't throw dog owners under the bus for the sake of grandstanding and optics. Thinking that people put into the position of, oh I don't know, the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE PROVINCE would apply some common sense, and follow a model that works like the Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw?
Oh no, we are hip now. We have seen the light and witnessed our Nanny State government flat out ignore common sense legislation and replace it with death and destruction. Flat out discrimination against law abiding citizens based on the shape of dog they own!
This past weekend was the 16th annual All About Pets Show. The show was one of the most organized shows I have ever participated in. I am really pleased that we decided to participate in this show. The demographic of people were different from other shows we have been doing. It was great to hit the "pet crowd" and a different crowd than other large shows in the GTA.
Having worked so many events in the past 4 years, there are several things I am noticing. - That generally speaking people are getting more hip to the fact that we are right and the government are downright dangerous to say the least. Even with lack of knowledge surrounding the Dog Owners Liability Act and canine law in general, people are hip to the fact now that if the Fiberals have legislated it; it must not make sense. If there is one thing I can thank our jerk of a premier for, it is waking people up to the fact that the government does NOT have the taxpayers best interest at heart!
-People respond much better to hearing a solution. They are thirsty for information and that HUGELY includes the "enforcers". We had many people who work the front lines of enforcement of this piece of crap law, stop by asking tons of questions and thirsty for knowledge. They reinforced the fact that they get ZERO direction from the province and feel that the law is so vague there is no way to effectively enforce it. Therefore, some areas have seen a dramatic rise in destroying dogs (or shipping as many as possible out of province) since there is no way to determine what dogs fall under the law.
- People are super receptive to the Calgary model. People were super interested in knowing more about the Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw. There were stunned to hear that the McGuinty Liberals ignored the information about the Calgary model presented to them at the committee hearings. Donations flowed as people heard that the Fib's were aware of an alternative that works and has been proven to work for nearly 2 decades and chose to launch a witch hunt instead. Dog owners are very hip to the fact that dog bites have not dropped and nothing has changed other than their friends who own short haired mutts have been stopped from visiting dog parks and dog sports etc. People are solidly behind us and it is great to have heard that from thousands of people and many were not dog owners.
Something that is still bothering me to the point of loosing my mind...
Here it goes... There is NO SUCH THING as a "pitbull"!
For dogs sake; if I hear one more time people agreeing with me.. Yes, there is no such thing as a "pitbull". In the same breath I have owned many "pitbulls". Look at that nice "pitbull". What is this dog? A "pitbull"?
Here is the deal breaker. If you like short haired, stocky mutts, never never never call them a "pitbull" or ever ever identify a dog, under any circumstances a "pitbull". Here's why. I understand the pride behind calling a dog a slang term that prior to November 29th, 2005 was not a scarlet letter or a target. I agree, there is nothing wrong with the word itself since it is partially contained in one of the purebred proper names. Here is the problem though, we have proven in court there is no such thing as a "pitbull". It is a slang term for a shape or type of dog. As of 2005 in Ontario, the word "pitbull" is associated with death, muzzling, witch hunt, strip your rights based on the shape of dog you own; not the behaviour of the owner or the particular dog. No siree, it groups together all dogs that "look" like a "pitbull" according to whoever is doing the identifying. It means something different to every person. It is like saying identify a Retriever or Shepherd. Both are slang terms for a shape or "group" of dogs. If the dogs are not registered purebreds (with a reputable registry; not a pet store stamp of approval or illegitimate registry for so called designer dogs) how do you know what mental picture someone gets in their head of what that term may mean?
I am going to say it again. This is fact not my opinion. Drum roll....
There is NO PERSON qualified to identify the breeds that constitute a mutt. Again, I mean no disrespect to mutts, mongrels or cross bred dogs however; when identifying them can mean whether they get to live or die it becomes a very different meaning. Why would one want to be the determining factor on whether a dog becomes a target for death. Not when there is no need for it. If the dog is a purebred, ok. He is what he is. But when he is a mutt, who the hell knows what he is and you and no one else is an expert on the matter cause experts on the matter don't exist. They are all hangin' with the 'pitbulls' in slangland.
So do the mutts and yourself a favour. Please STOP using the double standard.
KISS. Keep it simple stupid. If a dog is a purebred, identify him/her as such. There are such a minute amount (if any) purebreds that go through the "system" of shelters, pounds and rescues based on sheer numbers and that includes all breeds. Only a fraction of the dog population at large is purebred. Many are called purebred and might even strongly resemble a purebred but without the registry there is NO PROOF! It is illegal to breed and sell animals as purebred without registering them under the Animals for Pedigree Act. The actual banned breeds are even more rare since they were all among the rarest of all purebred breeds in Ontario to begin with. Dog pop. approx less than 1500 all three breeds combined! These dogs aren't out breeding like rabbits; therefore the likely hood that the short haired mutts you see so commonly and running through the "system" are a combination of the most popular dogs. IE. Labrador Retriever, Boxer, Golden Retriever etc etc...
If a dog is not a registered purebred, identify him/her as a mutt. Call it a day, find a good home if the dog passes evaluation. A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog... Every dog deserves an evaluation and every dog that passes an evaluation deserves a home. There is no obligation to identify the breeds of a mutt cause it cannot be proven. It is your word against another. If your dog is a mutt, take him into the pound and ask them to identify the breeds and get it in writing. At least then you have a document telling you what they are identifying them as. Remember, nobody is qualified. Remind them of that. No vet, shelter worker, washroom cleaning crew, dog judge or self proclaimed dog breed expert is qualified. As Mel Lastman would say, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOBODY!
It is time to cut the drama. Call a spade a spade. There is no need to ship mutts out of province. If any of these mutts that are being identified have any of the banned purebred breeds in their genetic makeup, I'll climb to the top of Queen's Park and shout "DOGS RULE; LIBERALS DROOL"! Actually I may do that, just for the fun of it..
With 30 American Staffordshire Terriers in the whole province I guarantee you none of the mutts on petfinder stating they are "Am Staff crosses" are "Am Staff crosses"! I have one of them and I guarantee you, he isn't out whoring around! I know most of the other 29 Am Staff owners in Ontario (we have become acquainted since 2004 when this crap started) and I know their dogs aren't out humping around either.
So there you have it. A report and a rant in the same post. Yes, I am a multi-tasker extraordinaire. Please do your best to get the facts out there. The only way we will win the real war is if common sense is restored and the Fib's are out of power.
April 10 to 12 is the All About Pets Show at the International Center in Toronto. Directions and show times are on the AAPS website.
We are having a booth at the show. Our booth number is 536. If you are coming to the show, please stop by.
The All About Pets Show is a fun outing for the whole family.
Just some of the features at the 2009 show are:
-Royal Canin Championship Cat Show sanctioned by the Canadian Cat Association. Multiple competition rings provide non-stop action each day.
- North American Flyball Association
sanctioned flyball tournament sponsored by Global Pet Foods in the Dog
Demonstration Ring sponsored by the CKC - Canadian Kennel Club
- Visit the Cesar's booth and meet Maggie from the commercial where you can have your picture taken with her.
- Centre
Stage sponsored by Milk-Bone - featuring
the Doggie Q Fashion Show, sponsored by Ren's Pets Depot,
The Parade of Breeds and Educational Seminars.
- Ask the Trainer - Time and Patience Dog Training seminars and certified trainers will be on hand to answer your questions.
- Pet
Adoption - Adoption
specialists will be on hand to help you find that perfect
family pet in need of a new home.
- The
exotic sounds and beautiful colours await you in the World
of Birds.
- Shop
from over 170 exhibitors with Great Show Specials on various pet products and services.
Come and
join us at the All About Pets Show! A true pet lover's paradise
dedicated to promoting the responsible ownership of pets.
All About Pets Show is proud to deliver to our Exhibitors and Visitors a first class, consumer pet show.
We look forward to seeing you there!!
Regrettably,
visitors are not permitted to bring their pets to the show.
Santa Barbara County, California recently invited Bill Bruce to speak about the Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Program.
I am thrilled the county of Santa Barbara has supplied a link to the video of Bill's presentation.
If you would like some enlightenment or investigate further what we have been preaching for the past few years, it is well worth your time to hit this link.
Thank you Santa Barbara County for posting the video to Bill's presentation. Thumbs up to Santa Barbara County for making the move to educate yourselves about the most efficient animal bylaw program in North America.
So... yesterday I was watching Oprah... I know, I know. I hate to even
admit I still catch her show if I have absolutely nothing else to do at that
particular time.
Hat tip to Janet C. She posted a transcript of a
portion of the conversation so I decided to throw up a post about it. (no pun
intended)
Justin Timberlake was on the show. Every Friday the Oprah show
does a panel discussion and Justin was a guest on the panel. Somehow the
wanker panel discussion came around to dogs.. they asked Justin "whatcha got?"
A picture of his dogs came up in the background.
Here is the transcript from that segment of the
show:
Oprah "I hear you love dogs? What
do you have? What are their names? (background Allie and others are asking
the same thing- they all talk on top of each other at times)
JT "my
babies names are" and he says this in a cutesy voice
Monitor shows the
pic of the 2 boxers and the mix..
Oprah says "you have real
dogs!"
JT - "In the back is Buckley & Brennan - brother and
sister"
Allie - "and you have a Pit Bull"
JT - Yah a Pit Bull/ lab
- ( couldn't quite make out this part but what I heard him say was - "she's
my Tina"
Allie "and she's sweet" sort of questioning
Gayle - "I'm
sacred of Pit Bulls"
JT - "no no"
Gayle -
"I've heard too many stories where they turn - you have no fear what so ever?
I've always been afraid just based on what I've read"
JT -
"no"
Gayle - "you have no fear of them?"
JT - "no
she is really sweet."
Then they went to another topic.
I know, I
know.. why bother mentioning this conversation? Because I am sick to death of the ill informed yapping on about what they hear and read in the news. Taking the
source at face value. (Which I might add is the same source that spews how much
weight Oprah or Gaylemay have
gained.)
I have lost
all respect for Oprah and her BFF Gayle. This
was the sprinkle on the icing on the cake. Oprah's schmoozing around with that
barnacle of a human HSUS Wayne was enough to make me ill but this Gayle
comment took the cake.
Here
are 4 great points/comments from
Janet;
Gayle King
besides being Oprah's BFF is the editor at large
for O magazine. Gayle needs to be educated and clearly Oprah should
of said something to defend the breed considering she had Caesar Milan on to
work with her dog Sophie (the black Cocker who was dog reactive) and brought a
bunch of his dogs to work with her - Oprah almost PLUTZED when she saw
Justin's "pitbull" but then relaxed when
she saw they were very social andcontrolled.
I feel it was disrespectful of Gayle to harp at
Justin, and clearly he was
uncomfortable, when she questioned if he
was worried. It is as though she was
suggesting he should be worried and question his
choice of dog.
Further - HARPO is the
owner/ sponsor of Rachel Ray's show and she owns a "pitbull".
Gayle's
reaction is like canine racial profiling - ergo one Black male sells crack = all
Black males are crack dealers.
Feel free to drop O and Gayle a
line. I think they are used to getting mail; on many fronts
lately.
The town of Midland recently amended their dog bylaw. They actually didn't change much other than increasing fines; however they were already on the "no fly" list for dog owners. Looks as though they are choosing to remain on the illogical list and maintain their status in the **ban plus club.
**the ban plus club is a name I have chosen for municipalities that choose to up the price of poker and add other breeds or non-breeds (mutts) to their list of "get out of our town cause we don't want you or your stinkin' dog here!"
Towns and cities actually have the power to choose NOT to enforce the law. They can choose to apply dog bylaws to ALL dog owners regardless of breed (which some Ontario towns have chosen to do). Some cities and towns choose not to enforce this barbaric, hysterical, illogical law. One such city is Ottawa (to learn more click here).
So basically here is a run down of the sections of the Midland dog bylaw that are pertinent to this topic.
TOWN OF MIDLAND
TOWN OF MIDLAND
BY-LAW NO. 98-41
A By-law for the
Licensing and Requiring the Registration of Dogs and for the Control of Dogs
within the boundaries of the Town of Midland
18.0 MUZZLING OF
DOGS
18.1 The owner of a breed of dog described in
Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law, shall ensure that
when the dog is on any municipal property, the snout of the dog is secured at
all times by the use of a muzzle so as to prevent it from biting a person or
animal and that the dog be secured to the owner by a leash.
SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO
AMENDING BY-LAW 99-64
Pit Bull Terrier,
American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American
Staffordshire Terrier, or any dog of mixed breeding which includes any of the
aforementioned breeds.
Rottweiler or any dog of
mixed breeding which includes the aforementioned breed.
Any member of the
Mastiff dog family or any dog of mixed breeding which includes the
aforementioned breed. (Amending By-law 2001-22)
So to break it down, the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier are legitimate breeds and are banned under the amendment to DOLA by the Fiberals in 2005. There are so few of any of the three breeds in Ontario, I highly doubt there are any in existence in Midland. There are less than 1500 purebred dogs total (all three breeds combined) in Ontario.
I've been through Midland many times. My mom lives in the next town and I don't stop for anything in Midland since I don't spend money in towns that are anti dog!
The Pit Bull Terrier and Pit Bull do not exist. They are slang terms for a shape or type of dog but can be any short haired cross bred dog of any combination possible commonly known as a "mutt". Labs being one of the most common breeds in Canada are likely a common portion of the composition of these short haired mutts.
The "or any dog of mixed breeding which includes any of the aforementioned breeds", cannot be proven since there is no way to determine (scientificallyor otherwise) the exact composition of breeds for any mutt. However the gotcha is Bryant added reverse onus in DOLA so it is up to the owner of a mutt to prove their dog isn't a "pitbull" if it is identified as such. You cannot prove a negative therefore you cannot prove your dog is not a "pitbull".
Also banned in Midland is the Rottweiler or any dog of
mixed breeding which includes the aforementioned breed. (Therefore Rottweiler's and any other black and tan dog with eyebrows).
And last but not least; Any member of the
Mastiff dog family or any dog of mixed breeding which includes the
aforementioned breed.
Mastiff breeds include: Old English Mastiff Neapolitan Mastiff Cane Corso Great Dane Tibetan Mastiff Bull Mastiff Dogo Argentino Dogue de Bordeaux Tosa Inu Fila Brasileiro South African Boerboel Presa Canario
So what is left? Hairy and small. But then again, I have witnessed some breed identifications that would make your hair curl. In my estimation, I am better off safe than sorry. I actually know for sure my dog is banned in Midland so I will continue to NOT visit or spend any money there. I will save my money for Elmvale or Penetanguishene. (Ontario local humor check the map). Take a long hard look at your dog before entering the town limits of Midland Ontario. If you are sitting in denial or think your dog's life is safe in this anti dog town, think again.
Côte St. Luc city council has given second reading to a proposed new
bylaw that will compel the owners or custodians of "dangerous" dogs to
muzzle them — although it will not specify any particular breed of dog.
The conclusion to the article is a little confusing; but I will assume the reference is to a previous train of thought.
My advice to Cote St Luc; keep in mind while writing your new dangerous dog bylaw to keep definitions clear and a case by case assessment. Keep in mind there is no such thing as a 'pitbull' even though the dog park crowd asked for a ban on them. Short haired mutts do not make a dangerous dog nor is any dog that "looks" threatening called a 'pitbull'. MSM has given permission to people not in the know to classify any dog that bites or threatens is a 'pitbull'. Just because it is spouted in the media does not make it fact. Just because some other jurisdictions have banned some breeds of dogs does not mean there is justification or just cause present.
My advice for citizens of Anytown Canada; find out proactively what your existing dog bylaws are. Find out if your town council has anything in the works to amend the current bylaw. Educate your council and community before there is a problem. If you have a decent bylaw in place count your blessings.
Our hearts go out to Jennifer Waite, owner of Hershey. I received an email from Jennifer this morning that Hershey passed last night after a brief illness.
Ladies and gentlemen, step right up! Witness the spectacle of the savage, snarling, snapping beast.
Jennifer Waite is sick of the media circus. The rhetoric in the morning
papers and the pronouncements of publicity-seeking politicians just
don’t jibe with her experience of living with a pit bull. Her dog,
‘Hershey,’ couldn’t be further from the stereotype. Says the payroll
clerk, “She just has this warm way about her that makes you relax and
be calm, and smile. You just want to pet her.”
No surprise that a dog owner is quick to defend her pet. Except that
Hershey has the credentials to back up her owner’s claims. You see,
Hershey was a St. John Ambulance-certified therapy dog. She was also
one of a handful of recipients of a Toronto Humane Society award, last
May, honouring community heroes (canine and animal-helping humans).
Hershey's picture was also featured in the article on the Dogs in Canada blog about our "Dollars for Dogs" campaign.
She was quite a girlie. I met Hershey and she was every bit, as described in the articles. She was a model citizen for dogs targeted for their shape in this province. Many people missed out on the benefits of her Saint John's Ambulance Therapy work; since she was forced into early retirement by the McGuinty Liberals in 2005 (when the ban took effect).
I'm having a difficult time containing my excitement. More and more jurisdictions are coming to their senses, albeit court ruling in some instances.
Italy came to their senses. KC Dogblog has a good post about that here.
The Netherlands tossed, UK is on the verge... many towns, cities and counties have already tossed the redneck legislation (stolen reference from caveat) into the trash and many others are on their way.
Miami-Dade is the latest jurisdiction to break out the burning barrel.
Mar 19, 2009 – Miami-Dade County, Florida - Miami Coalition
Against Breed Specific Legislation (MCABSL) and Animal Law Coalition
applaud a court ruling that the Miami Dade County Pit Bull ban is too
vague, and the county cannot enforce the finding by animal control that
a dog is a pit bull that must be euthanized or removed from the
county.
The ruling came in a case challenging the finding by Miami Dade
County Animal Control that a family pet named Apollo was a “pit bull”
that must be removed from the county or euthanized.
**The word euthanized should not be used as a substitution for killing or slaughter. Euthanize is a word used to describe the humane destruction of an animal in pain or suffering. To put out of misery, if you will. Not a word used to describe the senseless slaughter of innocent animals based on the shape or type they are or are similar to.
A court ruled Miami-Dade's 20 year ban on pit bulls was too
vague in defining "pit bull" and unfairly let animal control officers
basically guess whether a dog is a pit bull.
Could it be that the world is coming to its senses? Could it be that the redneck knuckle draggers are being squashed? By the way, here are couple examples of redneck knuckle draggers:
The tide is turning. People have begun to see the grandstanding for what it is. Lies, pure lies. The strong majority of people have cut through the bullsh*t.
The days of witch hunting short haired, muscular looking dogs is coming to an end. Time to retire the pitchforks and torches. Raise a glass to the restoration of common sense and the slap down to all the hysterical hatred. Let dogs be dogs and understand that dogs were never a problem in the first place. There are positive alternatives that are proven winners aka Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership law.
I came across an interesting article written by a physician named Joe Abraham from Louisianna.
Dr.
Abraham points out that something smells fishy in the HSUS camp (my words no
offense to fish). I have been wondering that very thought for quite some time
now. I have jokingly asked whether the animal liberationist "hidden
videos" of many sectors such as research labs, slaughter houses and puppy
mills, are shot in some movie set in Hollywood?
I don't doubt that substandard conditions are alive and well in any given
sector however I do question the hysteria and common occurrence we are being
led to believe. I do not believe there is just cause to threaten an entire
industry such as farming or dog breeding. It is a knee jerk reaction to legislate sweeping laws based on the word of an animal
liberationist group known for "dramatic effect" shall we say. Much research and input must be deliberated when entire industries are threatened. Emotion must not be the driver but rather common sense.
Wednesday night, Nightline airs a story of a Humane Society undercover
videographer, showing "horrific" video of primates at the UL New Iberia
Research Center. The very next morning, the Humane Society announces
that three Congressman are re-introducing a bill to abolish critical
medical research. Is the Humane Society fabricating a story to further
its political agenda?
Picture it … there’s a knock on your door. When you answer, you are
met by a child protective services official announcing they are here to
inspect your home. You ask why, they won’t tell you. When asked for a
warrant, you are told they don’t need one since you have 3 children.
They stroll through your house, tsking over the dishes in the sink to
examine your child’s hands and ears. With a declaration of “Just what
we thought” all your children are gathered up and seized. Why?
“Neglect, nails are too long and uncleaned ears”
It sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Yet pet owners breeders are being
subjected to this treatment in increasing numbers as a direct
consequence of two factors: ambiguous legislation, often touted as
“Puppy Mill legislation” and the purposeful mis-use of powerful words
such as ‘abuse’ & ’neglect’. The combination of these factors can
be devastating.
All of the above are great articles. Food for thought...
We have had many emails from panic stricken dog owners who are in the Canadian military asking why they cannot get back into Ontariostan with their dog. Well the answer is that if they are posted out of Ontario for longer than 3 months and take their dog with them, they are S-O-L on bringing thier dog back into the province.
The dog must have been licensed in Ontario on or before August 2005. This applies to all registered American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and "pitbulls" which applies to any dog identified as such by animal control or any other peace officer. I showed a sampling of some of the dogs deemed as banned here in Ontario in another post.
Below are a couple other examples of dogs deemed a "pitbull" since I posted in February. I merely want to give you a true picture of what a "pitbull" looks like in the eyes of many Ontario animal control officers, peace officers and some veterinarians. I actually do not blame those who have been given the ugly job of identifying a cross bred dog (which is impossible to do beyond a doubt). When it is a silly game in a shelter (name that breed) or looking at pictures on the web guessing what breed the dog is; all is fun and games. When an animal control officer, peace officer, vet or shelter worker play this game, it is a game of life or death. If the dog is unlucky enough to have someone identify them as a "pitbull", it is a death sentence. Not so damn fun anymore.
The dogs in the pictures above were identified as "pitbulls" in Ontario. They are littermates.
Getting back to where I place blame for this whole ugly mess...
McGuinty and Bryant orchestrated the whole fiasco but I also place blame firmly in the hands of each and every Fiberal MPP who voted in favor of banning dogs in the province of Ontario.
Overwhelming evidence was presented to them at the committee hearings contrary to the off the rails logic they were applying; yet their whipped vote passed into law the killing of innocent dogs and legislating discrimination against dog owners based on the shape of dog they own.
I realize I was off on a bit of a tangent and will explain how this ties in with my title. The great majority of people I meet and speak to have no clue they are potential targets just owning a dog period. Most people have a picture in their mind of what they suppose a "pitbull" may look like. Those that have been deemed "competent" to be the judge and jury appear to have quite a time narrowing down what it is they feel a "pitbull" may look like.
The term "witch-hunt" is often used to refer to similarly panic-induced searches for perceived wrong-doers other than witches.
So basically, the majority of dog owners look at their dog and think "I'm ok since I do not own a 'pitbull'; the law only applies to those who do own one".
Taking into consideration the reverse onus portion of the law, if your dog is identified as a "pitbull" it is up to you (the owner) to prove it is not. You cannot prove a double negative. Since it is impossible to postively identify the breeds that make up a cross bred dog it is impossible to prove your dog is NOT a "pitbull". That is the Fiberal's game of "GOTCHA".
It is illegal to move out of Ontario ie. military posting, taking your dog out of province for more than 3 months, and then turn around and bring the dog back into Ontario. If you move back within the 3 months you must prove your dog was a resident of Ontario prior to the leaving date.
It is also illegal to travel through or to Ontario as a non resident of the province, with your dog. No holidays or visiting for dog owners in Ontario.
It is illegal to import dogs falling under DOLA into the province. Since the definitions are vague, other than a registered named 3 breeds, any other dog is fair game based on who is id'ing the breed. This rule of thumb applies to any and all situations above.
Two months after Fort Hood officials
banned pit bulls in on-post housing, the U.S. Army standardized its pet
policy, barring pit breeds like American Staffordshire bull terriers
and English Staffordshire bull terriers.
The Army-wide ban also included Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, chows,
wolf hybrids and any others that display a dominant or aggressive
behavior, according to information from Actus Lend Lease, Fort Hood's
privatized family housing contractor.
The article goes on to state they will be implementing a "grandfathering" and those owning existing animals must register with the Fort Hood Veterinary Clinic prior to enactment in order to qualify for keeping their dog. (One would assume the "or else" factor would be killing your dog?)
The Herald reported in September that
pet owners who registered those breeds with the Fort Hood Veterinary
Clinic before July 10, 2008, were allowed to keep their dogs. Newly
acquired pit bulls and their crosses are prohibited from staying in
on-post housing, according to Fort Hood Regulations 210-48 and 40-5.
"This policy will reduce (the) number of potentially dangerous dogs on
post," Chris Zimmer of the post's Department of Emergency Services said
in September. "It will create a safer environment in Fort Hood housing
areas and will likely reduce (the) number of dog bites on post in the
future."
The miserable failing grade in this line of thinking is that the number of "potentially dangerous dogs" will be reduced. There is absolutely NO proof of any such thing. There is also a huge misconception that the environment will be "safer". Says who? All fun and safe until a breed or cross breed not on the "danger" list takes someone's face off. Then what? add another?
This line of thinking is outright profiling of certain perceived wrong-doers (owners of certain named breeds, determined by the torch/pitchfork crowd) within the US Military. **Refer to definition of witch hunt above**
Some way to thank the men and women of the US Military for risking their lives to save the asses of the torch/pitchfork crowd! I would bet the same crowd are the ones who back the idea there needed to be Military action taken against the "evil doers". It must be a drag to live ones life in such fear...
I live quite close to a military base. There is no evidence that using the same common sense approach of a Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw, just like the one Calgary perfected in the past couple decades, wouldn't work on a military base.
If a dog owner of ANY breed;
trains contains socializes
There should be no reason to deal with a dog owner other than to renew tags once a year.
The same scenario is happening in Onscario. Brave men and women who are deployed to Afghanistan or other countries on peace keeping missions, or simply are posted to other provinces are not allowed back into Onscario with their cross bred dog if the post is longer than 3 months or they aquired a dog while living outside Onscario.
It looks as though you are being targeted and punished by the government if you are in the military and own a dog. Civil rights apply whether you live north or south of the Canada/US border. Either way, the government has no right to come into any citizen's home and dictate what shape/type of dog they can/cannot own!
The town of Vauxhall, Alberta recently updated their canine bylaw. The new dog by-law passed unanimously at the first reading. The new law
would remove the breed specific language and determine dogs “dangerous”
on a case by case basis, and based on the dog’s individual behavior.
Listen up ill informed legislators and torch/pitchfork crowd...
Deputy Mayor Hagen stated in defense of the new by-law;
“There’s been a lot of work that’s gone into this,” said Hagen. “One of
the biggest problems with the old bylaw was not so much the spayed
animals, it was the $1000 licensing for certain animals, and the $1
million liability. Breed-specific bans are outdated.”
Word is spreading and those who truly want to amend laws for the better and implement common sense are taking notice.
I came across a video that made me chuckle. I have attended similar shows to the one shown in the video and have attended many multi breed dog shows. Overall it is rare one would see any aggression between dogs or dogs to humans with any breed. This video made me smile because this is what we have been trying to tell people; but it is the exact opposite to what the main stream media or torch and pitchfork crowd preach. When are people going to grasp that dogs are dogs are dogs...
Well, well, well... Did Toledo finally come to its senses?
Remember Tom Skeldon; one of the Fiberal *star* witnesses for enacting the breed ban here in Ontario? I guess he won't be whoring himself out as a *star* witness anymore?
AS THE recent killing of a Point Place family pet
makes perfectly clear, the first recommendation from the committee
formed to suggest ways to improve the Lucas County dog warden's office
must be a change at the top.
It is time for Tom Skeldon to go.
The Feb. 10 death by tranquilizer dart of Princess, a 10-pound
Pomeranian-beagle mix that had gotten loose from its home, gave the
county's dog warden a chance to show remorse, sympathy, understanding,
and flexibility. Instead, after a cursory "sorry," he dug in his heels
and blindly defended his department's policies.
It is through such policies, particularly a narrowly envisioned crusade
against pit bulls, that Mr. Skeldon has developed a reputation as an
uncaring zealot.
Dog warden Tom Skeldon, the driving force behind Ohio’s BSL, testified before the court in Tellings v. Toledo (2006). Here is a direct illiterate rambling statement from the dog warden himself.
"even if a dog was 50 per cent pit bull, if it did not
‘look like a pit bull,’ the owner would not be charged. On the other
hand, if a dog did ‘look like a pit bull,’ it would be classified as a
pit bull and the owner would be subject to the ‘vicious dog’ laws.”
It takes a while sometimes, but being an evil s.o.b. usually comes back around to bite one in the a**!
Have fun on the unemployment lines Skeldon. I hear the lines are quite long. I think there may some jobs shoveling dog poo. You sound like the type that is better suited to self employment anyway..
It has been a banner week for catching the animal murderers (HSUS) in the act. The waves have been abuzz with a solid case of proof that the real agenda of animal liberation groups such as HSUS, PETA and their tentacles is to eliminate the animals and cash in on the cow (pun intended).
HSUS collects billions of dollars from sheeple who buy, literally into their song and dance about saving the animals. "Saving" is HSUS language for "killing".
I guess donations have been falling off since many sheeple have been figuring out their money (donations) support senseless slaughter, the funding for marketing campaigns and hard core lobbying to enact extermination laws across North America.
Leona Helmsley New York billionaire, who passed away in 2007, left her fortune to the dogs.
There is an article in Business Week yesterday titled; Helmsley fortune goes to more than dogs.
The Humane Society of the United States said it hoped Helmsley's
estate still would benefit such causes as combatting dogfighting and
puppy mills.
"Her fortune has the potential to do so much
good for the animals many consider to be our closest friends and
companions," society President Wayne Pacelle said in a statement.
Helmsley's
fortune had been estimated at $5 billion to $8 billion after her death.
Rubenstein said much of the holdings are real estate entities with
changing values in today's economy, and an exact figure wasn't
available.
Let me translate the second paragraph for you if you are still illiterate to the language of animal liberation.
Her fortune has the potential to help the marketing campaign aimed at dog fighting (which is illegal already and has been for some time) and puppy mills (which are not clearly defined therefore anyone is a target). Many consider animals to be our closest friends and companions but we animal libbers feel they are better off dead than being confined with humans. Imagine how many lobbyists we could fund to support our extermination laws or "investigative" videos we could film to multiply our billions we have already taken in by pretending we are all about animal welfare.....
The media whores are at it again! Sadly, main stream media gets the negative attention it is so pathetically addicted to by putting the word "pitbull" in the title of as many story headlines as possible.
How is this for a hurtin' title? {Actually cracked me up.}
House of squalor: Police find guns, drugs, pitbull feces in Mount Vernon home.
To be honest, I didn't even read the article. I can't imagine being the forensics detail dude in this case. His job must stink! [chuckle]
It does raise the question though; if you can't scientifically identify a "pitbull" (since it isn't a breed but a slang term) then how does one identify their poo?
I'm
pleased to see that our friends in Calgary continue to make terrific
progress in the areas of preventing dog bites and educating owners as
well as children and utility workers about dog bite prevention.
Calgary dog attacks fall to lowest level in 25 years
City a leader in reducing canine problems, says top bylaw officer
By Sean Myers, Calgary HeraldFebruary 21, 2009
Attacks by aggressive dogs are at the lowest level they've been in 25
years despite a steady population growth and the absence of
breed-specific legislation brought in to tackle canine issues in other
jurisdictions.
Despite the low numbers, Calgary's top bylaw
officer plans to delve deeper into the causes of dog attacks to try to
bring the incidents even lower.
The
population of Calgary has more than doubled since Bill started working
on his program. The ongong statistics are depicted graphically at this link. The impound and kill stats also illustrate the remarkable achievement by Calgary Animal Services.
The
Ontario Liberals were told of Calgary's success and asked to invite
Bill Bruce to present at the Committee Hearings in 2005. Calgary was
brought up throughout the hearings by various witnesses yet the
government was reluctant to hear what Bill had to say.
I
can only assume that's because they didn't want his remarks to be
available through Hansard since one of their arguments in court has
been that there is no alternative to their ill-considered approach to
dog owner management.
Written
presentations do not appear in the record so are therefore not
available to the public. In the second snip, watch David Zimmer (Lib -
Willowdale and friend of the WSPA) dance around when asked to invite Mr
Bruce to present at Committee.
This was rigged from the start just as Bryant and McGuinty's law is completely rigged against dog owners.
February 2:
I will again direct you to Calgary's
approach. You received these many months back, and I'm sure you've received
them in the course of all these presentations. Their forward thinking has
worked for them for many years. Why can't it work here? Bill Bruce has even
offered to help set up and teach their approach to us here in Ontario. They
have approximately 90,000 licensed dogs in their city, and only five dogs
deemed vicious. That's five dogs -- count `em on one hand -- deemed vicious.
They are doing something right: zero tolerance for off-leash dogs and
unlicensed dogs, and strict requirements and high fines for owners who have
proved themselves incapable of being responsible dog owners.
Mr. Miller: Mr. Chair,
I have the director of animal and bylaw services for the city of Calgary, Mr.
Bill Bruce, who would like to appear before the committee, but because he's
employed by the city of Calgary and doesn't want to be seen to be interfering
in the affairs of Ontario, he needs to be formally invited by the committee
to be able to come before the committee. I would like the committee to invite
him to come before it. He has significant experience in animal control. The
city of Calgary has seen some significant reductions in animal bites. They've
had a 70% reduction in dog bites since they brought in their animal control
bylaws, and that has happened while the number of dogs in Calgary has
doubled. Mr. Bill Bruce would certainly be a very valuable person to lend his
experience to the committee, so I would move that the committee invite him to
appear before us.
The Chair: Mr. Miller
has moved that Mr. Bill Bruce, the director of animal and bylaw services for
the city of Calgary, appear before the committee. Is there any discussion on
the motion?
Mr. Zimmer: These
matters were taken up by the subcommittee, were they not?
The Chair: They
were.
Mr. Zimmer: There was
a witness list.
The Chair: There
was.
Mr. Zimmer: Presumably
this was raised then.
The Chair: It was
not.
Mr. Kormos: I don't
know the background of how this gentleman was brought to Mr. Miller's
attention, at least, but the fact is that here's a director of animal and
bylaw services for the city of Calgary. Reference has been made already to
the city of Winnipeg. I trust that other municipalities that have advocated
-- and fairly enough, because they've implemented breed-specific bans -- will
be called upon.
I don't know what the position is of
this gentleman from Calgary, but it seems to me that if the committee is
interested in getting the broadest range of information available to it --
gosh, we've got e-mails from people in other British colonies, Australia,
Great Britain. People are well aware -- this has attracted attention
internationally. If there's expertise available, why would we possibly shut
the door on it? If these people are prepared to assist the committee, let's
go; let her rip. Let's have these people in front of us. Quite frankly,
whether they're from Calgary or not doesn't offend me. It's of even greater
interest because obviously you've got a different provincial jurisdiction. I
encourage people to support Mr. Miller's motion.
Mr. Miller: I would
just like to support that by asking why we would not try to learn from the
jurisdictions that have had the most success, and Calgary has had significant
success. They've reduced dog bites by 70%. Here we have the director of
animal and bylaw services willing to come before the committee, but he needs
a formal invite to be able to come because he doesn't want to be seen to be
interfering with the affairs of Ontario. They've had very significant success
with an animal control bylaw that's not breed-specific, and I think we can
learn from that.
If the end goal is to have the most
successful legislation and to improve this legislation, I believe we should
be inviting Mr. Bruce to come before this committee. I would ask for the
committee's support in inviting Mr. Bruce to come and lend his expertise to
the committee.
The Chair: Shall I now
put the question?
Mr. Zimmer: This
matter of the witness list should have been -- if you wanted to make
arrangements to raise this matter, it should have been raised before the
subcommittee. This committee has set aside four days for hearings. There is
an extensive witness list for each of the four days. Each of the witnesses
has been allocated a time frame of approximately 10 minutes. The difficulty
now with entertaining last-minute changes to the witness list is, where do we
fit them in, and if we say yes to Mr. Miller's request, what should we do
with other requests that might come up from any other members on the
committee? There has to be some end to the process.
Mr. Kormos: The issue
seems to be the reluctance of this municipal official to make a submission to
this committee without invitation. Why doesn't the committee invite him to
make a written submission? Surely that can't be offensive to anybody. It
doesn't occupy any time of the committee, but it --
Mr. Zimmer: I'm going
to agree. I think that's a reasonable way to proceed.
Mr. Kormos: In that
case, you can interrupt.
Mr. Zimmer: That way,
we'll get the relevant evidence before the committee and we'll preserve the
integrity of the witness list for the remaining four days.
The Chair: Mr. Kormos
has the floor.
Mr. Kormos: But he
needs an invitation to make a submission so that he doesn't --
Ms. Monique M. Smith
(Nipissing): Written submission.
Mr. Kormos: Well, God
bless.
Mr. Zimmer: Yes.
Mr. Kormos: That's
what I said already -- so that he doesn't appear to be overriding his
jurisdiction.
Mr. Zimmer: We're with
you on this one, Mr. Kormos.
Mr. Kormos: You're on
track now.
The Chair: Mr. Kormos,
are you proposing an amendment to the motion?
Mr. Kormos: Mr. Miller
may want to. I don't want to cut his grass.
Mr. Miller: I
understand you're going to vote against this if we don't amend it. I'm
getting that feeling. Is that correct? The thing is, you have more members on
that side than we do on this side.
Mr. Zimmer: My
argument here is that we've got a very tight witness list. It's been planned,
10 minutes per witness over four days, and it's unfair now to re-jig the
witness list.
Mr. Kormos's proposal to accommodate
this witness, or accommodate your wish to have him send in a written
submission at our invitation, satisfies your purpose and preserves the
integrity of the witness list.
Mr. McMeekin: I'll
build on that. I suspect your political acumen is probably correct, Mr.
Miller. I think the rationale for argument from this side is where do you
draw the line? New Brunswick's looked at it. The provincial government in
Australia has looked at breed bans. There are a number of cities. To have one
isolated person in particular who has indicated a desire to make a
presentation -- I don't normally speak to amendments before they're made, but
I think on the surface, because we opened this up, there are at least a dozen
people I'd like to see invited. I think the concept of the written brief, as
Mr. Kormos has suggested and my colleague Mr. Zimmer has affirmed -- and
hopefully you, sir, might look at -- is a good way to go.
Mr. Miller: I would
certainly like to reiterate that I believe we can learn from Calgary's animal
control bylaw; I would be prepared to modify my motion to invite Mr. Bill
Bruce to make a written submission to this committee so that we may learn
from the city of Calgary.
The Chair: Mr. Miller
has amended his motion to read that Mr. Bill Bruce of the city of Calgary be
invited to submit a written brief to the committee. Is there any further
discussion? Shall I put the question?
In the few years of fighting this evil battle I have grown a much thicker skin. In my mind that is not a good thing; however one must "toughen" up to be able to function in this business of fighting for the right to own pets. How incredibly sad it has come to this.
There are still many people out there that shake their head when I say "right to own pets". Many have still not popped their head out of the sand long enough to see the real agenda of animal liberation groups.
Lassie Get Help has another excellent post! It is a must read. It is entitled "Worse Than Vick".
Bad Rap also gives another slant. The post is called "Numb".
There are links at the bottom of the posts giving other links to information. Please crosspost to every single person you know. HSUS is still being supported, along with all their wicked, evil, twisted step sister organizations that all belong to the animal liberation family.
To put dog owners, in the absence of any wrongdoing whatsoever, into
the untenable position of having to prove not only a negative, but also
an impossible one, is an insult to democracy and is, to be blunt,
un-Canadian.
It is a must read and please leave comments. I'm sure Bob Delaney reads the Missy News.
Excellent work Selma and thanks to the Mississauga News!
Everyone is talking about the 127 puppies and adult "pitbulls" killed in Wilkes County, NC. In reading the blog Yesbiscuit, the slaughter was carried out today under a court order.
Caveat has a post about this atrocity today. Be sure to follow the links from the caveat article to get the background story.
HSUS must be out'ed. Caveat is dead right! There is NO humane in HSUS.
Our recent dollars for dogs campaign is a continuing huge success! We are so fortunate to have raised enough money to continue to the Supreme Court of Canada. A sincere thank you to all who have and continue to participate.
We hope our supporters will continue to donate when possible. The financial burden is ongoing.
Hundreds of people have died in the horrific Victorian Bush Fires,
thousands of people have been left homeless and lost all their possessions. Thousands of pet and domestic animals died or are now in
emergency care.
Every cent we collect through the sale of our Yellow leads &
collars will go to the Red Cross Bush Fire Victims' Appeal. This is the
only time you will be able to get a yellow bit of Black Dog and your
opportunity to show your support for those who fight the fires and
those who have been left homeless (both human and animal).
To support the Bushfire Relief in Australia click here.
They
appeared in New York today - well, their serfs did - dressed as Ku Klux
Klansmen. I wonder if Grand Beagle Newkirk was present to rally the
storm-troopers.
The
thing is, the joke's on Peta. Walking around dressed in what I presume
is the new official uniform ties in so nicely with their profiling of
'pit bulls' - not to mention their owners - that it makes this observer
wonder why they waited so long to 'come out' and say it loud.
Tell it like it is, girls.
*
In other news, the 'charity' (ha ha ha! snorfffit! gezeegle! wahoon!) won a prestigious Award:
The American Language Association has announced the winner of its coveted "Doublethink"
Award, presented to the individual or group which best illustrates the
act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and fervently
believing both.
Congratulations to Ingrid and the crew. Here's hoping for more like this in future!
*
It
seems that the hypocrisy biz pays well. The gang is moving to spiffy
new headquarters in Washington, DC. The wascally wabbits at the CCF
are on a mission to warn the new neighbours about what to expect once the flakes move in.
*
We anxiously await Peta's kill numbers for 2008, but in the meantime, Terrierman refreshes our memory about their success in 2007
.
Peta - Providing low-hanging fruit since like forever, man.
= 
