pitbulliest
February 12th, 2005, 12:58 PM
*** PLEASE CROSS POST WIDELY ***
Bill 132 Update:
We have received word that the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, which has reviewed Bill 132 (the "pit bull ban"), will recommend that the entire Assembly vote it through its third and final reading. The last ray of hope is that the Lt. Governor does not give the bill 'royal assent.' Although royal assent is basically a rubber stamp the Lt. Governor does have the power to make decisions.
Action To Take:
Please help defeat this horrendous bill which will literally kill thousands of innocent dogs (pit bulls, "pit bull type" dogs and numerous other breeds as well!). Time is of the essence -- please call and/or write to the Lt. Governor TODAY urging him to NOT give Bill 132 royal assent. The Assembly will reconvene in just a few days!
A sample letter (my own letter to the Lt. Governor) is provided below. Also, there is a brief outline of what's wrong with this bill. When contacting the Lt. Governor please feel free to add important thoughts and experiences of your own.
** Thank you to everyone who has already taken part in this major action campaign. Please don't give up now -- this is our final chance to stop this nightmare! **
Lt. Governor Contact Information:
Lieutenant Governor of Ontario
The Hon. James K. Bartleman
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1
EMAIL: ltgov@gov.on.ca
Tel: (416) 325-7780
Fax: (416) 325-7787
What's wrong with Bill 132:
* Pit bulls are NOT high on biting statistics. Most bites come from other breeds and crosses i.e.: the vast majority of pit bulls are well-behaved canine citizens.
* Human and animal-directed aggression in pit bulls is a learned behavior, not a genetic predisposition of the breed.
* Although pit bulls and similar dogs with owners are grandfathered in this bill, all others face either euthanasia in shelters or a life in laboratory research. Although technically these dogs can be re-homed outside the province, the chances of this for the vast majority are small (rescue groups have a hard enough time finding local homes for any breed, much less homes that are far away and cannot be screened etc.).
* It is impossible to accurately identify a "pit bull" as there is major controversy whether this dog is even an actual breed. Even if it were, these dogs are often mistaken for other, similar breeds. Cross breeds that look like pit bulls could very easily be something else (just one example: boxer/lab cross).
* The proof of burden is on the owner to identify his or her unregistered dog, proving that the animal is NOT a pit bull. Outside of papered, registered breeds this proof is an impossibility (no genetic test, no proven methods exist even with canine "experts").
* The reverse onus (burden of proof) in this bill goes against the constitution. It does not follow "innocent until proven guilty."
* The "menacing clause" within Bill 132 is badly composed and ridiculously vague. Any dog (of ANY breed or cross) that is accused of "menacing" behavior, although menacing is not clearly defined (examples: by a disgruntled neighbor, ex-boyfriend, a person afraid of dogs etc.), can be seized from their home, even while the owner is away. This section of the bill puts ALL DOGS in Ontario in grave danger. Potential for misuse (intentional or unintentional) is there.
Sample Letter:
ATTENTION:
Lieutenant Governor of Ontario
The Hon. James K. Bartleman
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1
Your Honour,
I respectfully ask that you do not provide royal assent for Bill 132. Very clearly, this bill does not have the support of the major stakeholders nor does it have the support of the majority of the citizens of Ontario. In blatant disregard of the public hearings and the sizeable evidence presented against breed specific legislation, the Liberal Party has chosen to ignore the will of the people. The bill itself, and the Liberals' actions, are a slap in the face of democracy. In short, what we have is an unparalleled perversion of power. It is within your power to halt this atrocity and I respectfully urge you to do so.
Sincerely,
Bill 132 Update:
We have received word that the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, which has reviewed Bill 132 (the "pit bull ban"), will recommend that the entire Assembly vote it through its third and final reading. The last ray of hope is that the Lt. Governor does not give the bill 'royal assent.' Although royal assent is basically a rubber stamp the Lt. Governor does have the power to make decisions.
Action To Take:
Please help defeat this horrendous bill which will literally kill thousands of innocent dogs (pit bulls, "pit bull type" dogs and numerous other breeds as well!). Time is of the essence -- please call and/or write to the Lt. Governor TODAY urging him to NOT give Bill 132 royal assent. The Assembly will reconvene in just a few days!
A sample letter (my own letter to the Lt. Governor) is provided below. Also, there is a brief outline of what's wrong with this bill. When contacting the Lt. Governor please feel free to add important thoughts and experiences of your own.
** Thank you to everyone who has already taken part in this major action campaign. Please don't give up now -- this is our final chance to stop this nightmare! **
Lt. Governor Contact Information:
Lieutenant Governor of Ontario
The Hon. James K. Bartleman
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1
EMAIL: ltgov@gov.on.ca
Tel: (416) 325-7780
Fax: (416) 325-7787
What's wrong with Bill 132:
* Pit bulls are NOT high on biting statistics. Most bites come from other breeds and crosses i.e.: the vast majority of pit bulls are well-behaved canine citizens.
* Human and animal-directed aggression in pit bulls is a learned behavior, not a genetic predisposition of the breed.
* Although pit bulls and similar dogs with owners are grandfathered in this bill, all others face either euthanasia in shelters or a life in laboratory research. Although technically these dogs can be re-homed outside the province, the chances of this for the vast majority are small (rescue groups have a hard enough time finding local homes for any breed, much less homes that are far away and cannot be screened etc.).
* It is impossible to accurately identify a "pit bull" as there is major controversy whether this dog is even an actual breed. Even if it were, these dogs are often mistaken for other, similar breeds. Cross breeds that look like pit bulls could very easily be something else (just one example: boxer/lab cross).
* The proof of burden is on the owner to identify his or her unregistered dog, proving that the animal is NOT a pit bull. Outside of papered, registered breeds this proof is an impossibility (no genetic test, no proven methods exist even with canine "experts").
* The reverse onus (burden of proof) in this bill goes against the constitution. It does not follow "innocent until proven guilty."
* The "menacing clause" within Bill 132 is badly composed and ridiculously vague. Any dog (of ANY breed or cross) that is accused of "menacing" behavior, although menacing is not clearly defined (examples: by a disgruntled neighbor, ex-boyfriend, a person afraid of dogs etc.), can be seized from their home, even while the owner is away. This section of the bill puts ALL DOGS in Ontario in grave danger. Potential for misuse (intentional or unintentional) is there.
Sample Letter:
ATTENTION:
Lieutenant Governor of Ontario
The Hon. James K. Bartleman
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1
Your Honour,
I respectfully ask that you do not provide royal assent for Bill 132. Very clearly, this bill does not have the support of the major stakeholders nor does it have the support of the majority of the citizens of Ontario. In blatant disregard of the public hearings and the sizeable evidence presented against breed specific legislation, the Liberal Party has chosen to ignore the will of the people. The bill itself, and the Liberals' actions, are a slap in the face of democracy. In short, what we have is an unparalleled perversion of power. It is within your power to halt this atrocity and I respectfully urge you to do so.
Sincerely,