St John Ambulance will not back banned breeds

who are already registered Therapy Dogs. Pretty BAD! :yuck:

Are they 'just upholding the letter of the law' or suggesting that their own testing isn't that accurate? (Ie: If a dog has passed their own testing, up to now that dog was considered 'safe' as a visiting therapy dog. So, now that dog isn't safe, anymore? Or it was safe until the vote on 3rd reading was over, & them the same dog became majically Unsafe??) :crazy:

They (St. J. Amb.)devise the tests, supervise the tests, conduct the tests, arrange the tests, & grade the dogs as pass or fail.)

They are even preventing members from participating in any demos or political action wearing the uniforms.

They haven't replied to my email questions about them giving any support at all to their volunteer members, ( via correspondense to Bryant's office, their MPP's, or letters to the editor) or at least supporting the validity of their own darn testing.

IMHO, if you are a St J. Amb. volunteer & have had this happen, make your views known, & if you feel you should, send in a note of resignation with a copy to their head office. :thumbs up

They probably do back their testing, however they are also just following the trend of the law and government.

SJA is in a tricky situation--they make their money off of helping people and signing contracts with important groups. They can't afford to take a "risk." The government is telling the province that the risk is so big that it is worth banning these dogs---why would SJA's clients not believe this is the case too and look down on them for keeping the dogs in the group?

Unfortunately, I do not believe that they are in the position to make a point out of this ban---owner's, animal lovers and pet associations are.

I'm not saying it's a good situation--but I can see where they are coming from. They have to protect their own interests.

Actually, "No". They have not treated their volunteers with much respect, & are the poorer for losing so many dedicated people & dogs. (And not just people connected with the Therapy Dog program, or this issue.)

"Why would SJA clients Not believe the Government?" you ask. If those clients have had the same dogs & handlers visiting for the last 5+ years without incident, I can't see any reason why they would believe the Gov. over their own personal experience? :confused: I think that the client's liason people are not stupid or blind. I do not believe much, if any pressure has been applied by hospitals or senior's residences to get rid of dogs X, Y & Z. (There are some people in those institutions who are terrified of dogs, & do Not welcome SJA visiting dogs at all. Has that ever prevented SJA from visiting? Not that I'm aware of...(in over a year of therapy dog visits)

IMHO, SJA may be Ontario's oldest charity org. but it needs to get out of the 18th. century & stop treating it's volunteers like chattels. People don't give their time to get **** & abuse!

Did they present to the committee at all or make any move to defend the dogs during the time the bill was being considered?

it did not defend either the past or present use of soon to be banned breeds.

It was i think sent to M. Bryant's office, & it was never made public. It was sent in Feb. 2005. Too little, & too late.


There was given by way of expanation to volunteers, to any who asked for one (but not to any who didn't ask) about why they were now out of the program.

I think it was phrased as 'Responsibilty to the communittee'. What communittee? The political communitee? :evil: Are not the volunteers & their dogs part of the same communittee? My dog is more a part of my area than M. Bryant will ever be, simply because the dog lives here, & he doesn't.

There own charter forbids them from discrimination on the basis of breed, race, creed & colour of human or dog in applications to join. :confused:

IMHO, my own area did have breed waryness, perhaps predjudices. They were quite abrasive from day one. And they do seem to get far too involved in what volunteers & their dogs do Outside of SJA. We are not signing our lives away to be part of a volunteer program. Volunteer muzzling next?

I understand your frustration but they are in a tough situation too. I'm not sure how it works, but if they take on a volunteer with a PBT in tow, are they not liable for any incidents that may occur? By this I do not mean would they pay the fine--I realize that volunteers probably sign wavers to release them of this. However, what I am asking is are they not liable to the community simply for allowing this breed (which has been banned) to be a part of their team?

I believe the answer is yes. They wouldn't get backed by the media for their decision to include this breed, nor by the politicans (if their's is a Liberal), or the general public who believe this ban is necessary.

I am not saying that I agree with their decision. PBT's have proven to be very good at their jobs, however, the people that SJA has to answer to may not be in agreement.

On another note, perhaps they don't actually WANT to make this decision but feel they have to....you never know what happens behind closed doors.

I guess I just try to see the best in people and am hoping that they are not simply discounting this breed because they too feel they are a danger, but simply because they have to protect their ability to serve the community without fear, complication, etc from the public.

Are you a volunteer that has been dumped?

If they are excluding future dogs, that's one thing, but if they are suddenly dumping well-established current volunteers, that's wrong. I'll be sending them an e-mail, and if that is the case, I'll get my re-cert from somewhere else.

So this is not Bill 132 or BSL related in my case but...........


I came to the conclusion that: Either this person in charge hated me for some reason from Before we even began the testing, hated my family also, or had a problem with the breed of dog we brought into the program. (not a Pit, Staffy, Rotti, or any Bully breed) And by being rude, strident & abrasive on each & every occassion I was in the same area, tried to get us & our dog out of the TD program. (because according to the SJA charter, overt discrimination is against that charter's rules.)

Interstingly, the dog breed that the person has in TD work, has I believe several fatal attacks on record in Canada...Our dog's breed has attacks recorded, but no fatalities. Apples & oranges perhaps, but if SJA, head office, hasn't done a thing for it's volunteers but write a unpublished letter in Feb. 2005, then perhaps it has it's reasons for not standing up for it's volunteers & tested dogs in a meaningful way. (Only they know what those reasons are, but I do know that there was some unofficial breed predjudices (Pit Bulls) involved in our chapter.) And if Bill 132 eventually starts to ban breeds with Cdn. fatality stats, I assume this person & her dog will bow out of that part of the SJA program gracefully & quietly as all the current effected volunteers have been expected to do.)

And IMHO, it does throw the validity of it's own testing & accuracy of it's testing right out the window. Also it's charter, which promises Not to discriminate, in the case of the human or canine volunteers if they pass the testing, police screening (humans), & the basic application process. I guess it's time to re-write that charter?

As I understand it, some Ontario SJA chapters have not jumped volunteers for objecting to Bill 132 in public, & in uniform. (So it may depend on the chapter if the rules from SJA head office against SJA uniformed BSL opposition/ political involvement were enforced or not.)

(After going through a police screening at the applicant's cost, & perhaps a 6 month wait for testing, & then another long wait for a placement, yup, SJA DOES owe it's volunteers substantailly more than that tiny, token protest.)