Public Heath Report On Pit Bulls Due Out Tomarow (toronto)

Tomarow (Friday Jan 13 05) around 2 maybe earlier They are expecting the Board of heath to deliver their report. They have said that they have made quote informal consultations. When I called Olivia Chows office today this is the information that I received. When I became concerned about informaal consultations they sugessed that we attend the hearing It is at city hall commity room one. Please get the word out!!!!!!

With the provincial ban looming over our heads, Why are cities wasteing time with there own bans? Is there notheing more urgent than pit bulls in a city the size of Toronto? Or is Miller trying to get in bed with the liberals? If Toronto said no to a ban, Bryant would look like the fool he is, as would the rest of the liberals, If Toronto say's yes, it will be another feather in Bryant's cap. It allmost looks like bryant has been a busy boy over the holiday's, pushing toronto for a ban, so he can get back to makeing headlines again.
If the report is genuine,(like the one in 97) it will not support a ban, If there was political interferince, it will support a ban. Tomorow will be a real nailbiter day, that's for sure, when the biggist city in Ontario makes a move right or left, people pay attention.

well its the day has anyone heard anything yet????

Hey Everyone!! Good news. Watch CTV at 11. The Report does not recommend a B A N. Yahoooooooo!!!! Recommends more public education and tighter restrictions on I think breeding and owning but not a ban.

:thumbs up OMG that would be awesome if there was no ban!!! Finally someone has come to their senses!

I think this might be the report:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/committees/hl/hl050117/it012.pdf

I just skimmed through it, but it looks like they will be asking for enforcement money from McGuinty and asking Bryant to include mandatory microchipping of pits.

To sum it up, they found that pitbulls were number two in reported bites, and also said that not only does the authors of the report not believe in banning of pitbulls, feel that any numbers implicating pitbulls are suspect, as there is a high number of owners who do not register thier pitbulls due to negative perception. It also states that Calagary has the best success at dealing with dogs. It states that in the great majority of cases, actual experts are against the ban, while it is only those officials who are in charge in municipalities with bans, that support bans. It finds that banning breeds is not the answer, as the problem owners will move on to other, and potentially more dangerous breeds. It also addresses issues of negative and harassing actions of responsible owners of gentle dogs being labled as "dangerous".

All in all, it's beautiful. It'll be interesting to see how Mayor "It's all thier fault" treats this report.

And who knew?

Politicians who aren't afraid to actually INVESTIGATE both sides of the coin and listen to logic.

What a concept.

It will be interesting now, to see if Brytler and McGoering bother to read this report, or simply file it away with the other reports that don't agree with their 'goal to protect the people' vision.

I just read the document, and I've got to say... it has given me some faith back in at least some form of government. At least some people are able to look at different alternatives, weigh the pros and cons, and read the Trempe report. Not only that they have consulted with real experts, which is also nice to hear.
Not that it will make a difference to their knee-jerking cousins at the provincial level, but at least someone in politics is earning my taxes.

Jono

The part I liked was that the Attorney General has to allow for 100% coverage of fees related to enforcing the ban for a 3 year transitions period. Now he just can't make an idiotic law and wash his hands of it; he will HAVE TO be responsible for the allocation of fees and then he has to be able to justify why there are so many costs involved. Yet... he has no idea what those costs are because he never consulted ANYONE about this ban! :thumbs up

Sammie you are so right as soon as he will be held accountable for allocation of funds which you and I know will never cover the costs he will be running away from this with his tail between his legs. They cannot expect the municipalities to pay for their a**inine law they are already stretched to the limits. I would like to apply for one of the new jobs with animal control because it would be great to be on the dogs side and not enforce the law which I am sure quite a few of the A.C officers will do nothing unless the dog really is a threat. The bonus being it is a government job you are not going to lose it anytime soon since it takes a lot to get fired.

I do agree it looks great. But did I read it wrong. I think their recommendations say that although they don't endorse banning specific breeds, they still think it's ok to label a breed specifically as dangerous, agressive or vicious and subject that breed to the same restrictions as other breeds that have exhibited agressive/vicious behaviour.

Sorry, I am still trying to find the quote I am refering to.

If I am reading this right, then this is NOT the public health report. It is adressed to the Board of Health.

The problem is that they're not able to demand that the AG do anything, the specific line says that he will be requested to fund 100% of the municipal implementation costs for three years, but he's free to just deny them that, and put it through anyways.
More importantly than that though, I think this proves that regardless of what the Mayer and Chief say, the city of Toronto does not support a breed ban, nor do they support the bill at all in it's current form.
I'm under no illusions, 132 will probably get passed. My one goal (and what I'll be writing to the committee about) is to get enough changes made so it's actually an effective piece of legislation, which targets irresponsible owners and educates people on dog safety, instead of a knee-jerk reaction, aimed to keep the AG in the news.
Oh, and I have a meeting with Donna Cansfield, who's my MP to sit down and discuss this. She's on the committee which is currently handling the bill. Unfortunately it will be after the Assembly starts sitting again, but may still be able to help.

Jono

The Medical Officer of Health did the report, they are a part of the City of Toronto's Public Health Department. Dr. David McKeown was appointed back in July as Toronto's Medical Officer of Health.

I have reaad the report as well as possible, in the middle of the night, all 29 pages, but some of it is still worriesome for me, especially about the insurance. I don't have any kind of insurance and as a self-employed artist I need my money to go for the care , feeding, health, and training for my dog. They did not really seem for or against insurance so I thnk we have to keep pressure on the city around this issue. I believe the report stated that certain unions want us to carry liability insurance. We know how powerful unions can be. I also still don't trust the mayor to do the right thing so some pressure on him might be a good idea, now that we have the board of health as ammunition I would like him to make a formal statement that he has recieved this report and understands that PITS aren't the problem. Not that that will ever happen but we should press for some admition that now that hes had a closer look at the issue his first impression was mistaken. I think Ill try and call that horrible woman from his office again. Back to that insurance thing, we called around and couldn't find a company that would offer it. Does anyone have any info about this?

I agree with Jono that they can't force Bryant to do anything, but if they make noise about enforcement money it opens the door for other municipalities to do the same. Miller is always trying to get more money for Toronto, and based on population alone this law will cost Toronto more than any other municipality.

If Bryant doesn't want to pay-up, Toronto can say "Our intensive study found that breed bans are an inefficient method to reduce bites..yada,yada... You want a ban, and our research shows bans don't work. You should fund YOUR ban..."

Politicians being politicians, once they smell money- others may state the same thing. Tax-payers being tax-payers, if some get wind that McGuinty's law might indirectly affect their municipal taxes( property tax etc) maybe a few fence-sitters will jump to our side.

It all depends on how they play things.
At the very least, Toronto didn't say "ban pits." If that was the case, we'd be completely screwed.

Unfortunatly, they can't force anyone to do anything, including the city. This is only a research type document. They don't actually recommend anything, just paint the pros and cons of each (although they do state that they do not agree with a breed ban) The closest they come to a recommendation is using Calgary as a model for any legislature. It is a very positive paper, but who wants to bet it doesn't get much coverage.

Watch CTV at 11.

I didn't get a chance to watch CTV news, did anyone catch it?

ya, the gist of it was that all dogs displaying dangerous behavior would be designated as such however, this is lost in the report in the Toronto Star. After reading the report myself, it does lean away from breed bans but it doesn't say out and out that a dogs behavior should be considered in designating a dangerous dog. I think we will just have to wait for the minutes of the actual meeting where it was presented to council.
I guess what I think is most promising about this is that the City will be asking for money from the province to police whatever legislation is passed. This is not going to happen. Further, animal services and the enforcement of the related by-laws is not a priority in the City of Toronto. The services at present are underfunded.

I have not read or heard anything about BSL lately,until now...
What worries me is Bryant's outbursts,like "BAN,Ban,Ban the Pit-Bull!!"his total hatred for the dog and his totally unreasonable demeanor.
Just like a spoiled kid not wanting to give up a toy and taking a tantrum.
He gets a crazed look in his face talking about Pit-Bulls and has a one-track mind.
I'm afraid he'll do anything to push BSL through :evil:

I
...one-track mind.


It's tought to put a lot of tracks in a pea...

Bryant is an ass we all know that but you know what this going to come down to who is going to pay and none of them want to fund it. How are they going to justify the amount of money it is going to cost just to implement never mind the day to day costs. When we have people who can't get cancer treatment but the government will spend a huge amount of money to ban a dog. This will never fly when the public realizes they are going to end up paying for it.