In the Star today

Don't like how this is reported:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1106002215952

Thanks Dukie, I'm going to put it here just in case someone is on a rush to read it: (P.S. I hate how the star says "will soon be banned" - they truly are sell-out jack****s to the Liberals. And Fillion is a loser, he's from the Police Services Board and he made repeated headline-grabbing allegations about the police spying on him and then quickly backed down when asked by the board to lay a formal complaint. He's another idiot who loves media attention until someone calls him on his b.s. Sorry for all the *** - I'm in a bad mood :mad:


Health board targets city's bad dogs
Wants to curb vicious animals

But licensing gap could be a problem


BRUCE DEMARA
CITY HALL BUREAU

The Toronto Board of Health wants to put the muzzle on all vicious dogs — not just the pit bulls that will soon be banned by provincial legislation.

Board members directed staff yesterday to determine if the city has the authority to designate dogs either dangerous or potentially dangerous, and to look at criteria such as muzzling in public, enforced neutering or requiring dog owner liability insurance.

"I think the board wanted something with a bit more teeth in it and that would be a companion Toronto piece to whatever provincial legislation goes through," said board chair Councillor John Filion (Ward 23, Willowdale).

But first, the board must grapple with a serious problem that could impede the effort to identify bad dogs: the fact that only 10 to 15 per cent of the estimated 200,000 canines in Toronto are licensed.

Filion said he assumed more than half of all dogs in the city were legally licensed and was "completely shocked" that the number was so low.

"Either we haven't had the resources or we haven't had the will, but we've just been letting people get away with not licensing their dogs. In addition to causing a revenue problem, it also causes a problem in identifying dogs," Filion said.

Medical officer of health Dr. David McKeown said low numbers of licences result in lower revenues and the inability of animal control staff to attack the issue of vicious dogs.

"If we're going to expand to do a better job in reducing the risk of vicious dog attacks, we're going to need more resources. Licensing is an important tool for keeping track of dogs, for monitoring dogs and their behaviour," McKeown said.

Licence fees in Toronto range from $10 for a dog that is neutered and microchipped to $50 for a dog that is neither.

In a report, McKeown noted studies from Health Canada and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention consistently show the majority of dog attacks happen to children under 14 who are attacked by dogs they know. Only 15 per cent of dog bites occur in public places.

In Toronto, figures from 2001 to 2003 indicate 52 per cent of bites came from nine breeds out of 70. Pit bulls were second to German shepherds as the main culprits.

Filion said he nonetheless personally supports the provincial legislation to ban pit bulls.

It's nice how they left out the fact that the report stated it did not support a ban. It's becoming more and more obvious that the Liberal Star is more of a propaganda machine than a news source. I won't be able to send in any e-mails for a few days because I won't be home, but I think we should all let them know that the forgot to report on a few items from the report. Has it hit any of the other major dailies?

Hey Schwinn - I sent you an email!

Hey Schwinn - I sent you an email!

Thanks. I'll have to get it tomorrow. I'm staying in the city tonight (unless I can figure out how to get my e-mail from my sisters. :) )

John Fillion's character can quickly be summed up by reading this article: http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/edesk060804.htm

Coun. John Filion is the lecture-everybody chairman of the wacky Toronto board of health. John’s the guy in charge ....regulating the use of pesticides on lawns. When it comes to lawns, he has been known to lecture Torontonians whom he says should avoid the use of pesticides.

Although we don’t hear about it too often, Filion is a homeowner with a house on a rolling lawn. Filion’s lawn is, well, like the image he likes to create in his election brochures: pristine. Filion’s rolling lawn got that way because he uses--pesticide.

You probably have someone in your town or city just like John Filion, an elected official who tells the great unwashed who elected him: "Do as I say, not what I do."

I'll take some responsibility for electing Liberals - once. How do all these other idiots get elected?

P.S. I have not bought a Star in over a month due to their biased content. Read them for free in coffee shops, buses, etc

My goodness a politian who lies who'd a thunk it. I will also take some responsibility for the liberals but that will never happen again I will vote communist before I would ever vote liberal again. I have come to realization that there some politicians who genuinely care they are few and far between but most honestly don't give a crap about anything but gladhanding to keep their cushy jobs. They don't read our emails because they don't care enough to hear what we have to say until election time then they are banging on our doors wanting to talk to us. The papers each have their own bias as well but some are not quite as blatant and the Star and The Scum. Surpisingly the most neutral papers have been the National Post and Globe and Mail. The piece in the star misses facts and does not print the whole story but does that surprise anyone? Print what they want sort of like our AG only tell people what fits his agenda, hmmm could their be a connection

No matter how many reports are witten, or acredited people saying breed bans don't work, politicians like filion, and our very special A.G will continue to jump onto the grass they think is greener. The facts don't matter, and nether do the reprocutions of there actions, all they want is power. They do not care about the ten's of thousand's of people and pet's afected by there inactions, of not dealing with the real problem(people who have no bussness owning a pet) there main concern is the millions of people they are fooling into beliveing what they say to be true, "Trust us, It's the dog's fault, not the owner."
It's time to put pressure on the federal goverment to outlaw breed bans, then the real problem of dog agression can be addressed, and A.G's like bryant will not be able to granstand an a platform based on hate and ignorance.

Here is the SUN's version.
The word "pit bull" isn't even mentioned.( That's gotta be a first for the SUN).
They just talk about "deadbeat owners."

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/01/18/901980-sun.html

I think we need to write to every paper that prints an article about the report, but does not mention the reports stand on the ban. Here we have an officially sanctioned study that goes against the politicians, it's a perfect opportunity for us to prove what we've been saying all along--no one who actually has read the stats wants the ban.

The SUN's official editorial position is AGAINST the ban. They are the only paper that has taken this stand.

Except for Bob MacDonald that old jerk that always writes bad about pit bulls and their owners. I have written him many many many times. Even before this dang bill came out. I hate that guy. Anyhow.... Hes just like Bryant... over exagerating, false facts and plain and simple fear mongering... but your right that their editorial stance is definately against the ban.... Every Pit bull letter they publish usually agrees with the anti-BSL comment made. Don't forget we have Pulse24 on our side too.

MacDonald is just a thick-headed redneck. And yes, he is a proponent for the ban. It's because he can't handle anything but simple solutions that don't involve any brain-power. But Linda Williamson, John Downing, et. al., are all against the ban.