Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

I'm gonna kill someone!!!

pitbulliest
October 16th, 2005, 08:33 AM
I AM SO ANGRY RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil:

I got a call today from a man that was nearly in tears! He said he adopted a dog from us in August, and said that on the papers he received from us, the breed was marked as PUG MIX. I haven't seen the dog, and I don't know what kind it is or what it looks like; but that's not the point.

Anyways, this guy was crying over the phone, saying that he went to one of the animal control centers on Progress Ave. He went with his dog to look for another dog for adoption. When he was in the shelter, he was approached by the staff if you want to call them and pretty much harassed into registering his dog as a pitbull. They told him that the dog needs to be muzzled IMMEDIATELY, and that he must be registered and microchipped under the law. He provided them with the Toronto Humane Society's papers, stating that the dog was marked as a pug mix. They told him that the Toronto Humane Society is NOT part of the city like Animal Control is, and therefore they have no idea as to what they are talking about......and that Animal Control is run by the city so they know best......

I have contacted the mayor's office and was contacted by the secretary. She told me she'll be forwarding my message to animal control. Can we say "getting bounced around?"...I could have done that on my own lady! So I tried to get in touch with the mayor's office again requesting that someone give me a reasonable explanation as to why the mayor's office is ignoring the citizen's of Toronto when they have reasonable questions and are getting no answers. I also stated that as usual, animal control didn't even bother to get in touch with me..surprise surprise! No reply from any of them as of yet. Why did I even bother? I knew what the outcome was going to be anyways; NOTHING.

Anyways..the guy's dog is now being muzzled in public, and the papers basically don't count, so the humane society doesn't matter and we're all wrong and dumb; however, animal control stated that its a pit, so therefore its a pit...no proof, no comparisons, nothing....its a pit because they say so...our opinions don't count. THEY FORCED THE GUY ..... OR ELSE HE WOULD GET INTO TROUBLE FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING FOLKS. Just you wait until Oct comes around....oh gawd.....


:evil:

pitbulliest
October 16th, 2005, 09:52 AM
don't you think animal control needs to do their job? I think its THEM that are a bit harsh...

love my dogs
October 16th, 2005, 12:06 PM
This is where a lot of people are going to be extremely pissed. Peolpe who may have not payed attention to bsl, and possibly people who were even for it.

People who thought "I'm never going to have a pitbull, so it won't affect me anyways". Those people don't know the bsl law, and probably don't care to.

Those same people adopt a pet. (not a pitbull of course, because they would never own a pitbull). But wait.....one day, animal control decides.....it looks like a pb, therefore it is a pb...now, you must comply with our discriminatory law because the dog you thought was a lab, or pug, or great dane, is suddenly a banned pitrbull!!!

I hope this BSL bul***** blows up thier faces. I hope Fred Tranquilli (London) adopts a lab, and it turns out to be a Pitbull. Poetic justice.

pitbulliest
October 16th, 2005, 12:58 PM
That would definately be the day..it'd be even better if Michael Bryant adopted a Chihuahua and animal control insisted he muzzle and register it under Bill 132...buahahaha...

But yeah, it sucks big time. And its just not fair to dog owners, regardless of breed...even though pitbulls are the targetted ones of course. I think this was another way for the city of Toronto to start collecting more tax payers money..this was probably planned out: "hey, if we see some dogs that could potentially pass as pitbulls, we'll order people to register and pay up for tags. MORE MOOLA FOR T.O!".......

:yuck:

Georgiapeaches
October 16th, 2005, 02:28 PM
Under the provincial law I do not believe pitbulls need to be microchipped. I think there is a lot of confusion there.
Mine are microchipped, but it is by choice.

pitbulliest
October 16th, 2005, 02:48 PM
See? The madness has already begun..I'm writing from work right now. The guy that called in with the pug mix..he just came into the shelter a few hours ago and surrendered the dog. He said he doesn't want to muzzle it or have any problems with the law, so he doesn't want to keep it. Guess the guy doesn't care, period....that's not the point. The dog is clearly registered as a pug mix...

But anywho..AC knows best! THE CITY KNOWS BEST!
Thanks Michael Bryant..thanks a whole lot! You're my hero! :mad:

LL1
October 16th, 2005, 03:47 PM
TAS on Progress is in Scarborough and I do not believe they did what he is alleging.There you go,yet another BS story an owner surrender gives when dumping a dog.

Puppyluv
October 16th, 2005, 04:12 PM
TAS on Progress is in Scarborough and I do not believe they did what he is alleging.There you go,yet another BS story an owner surrender gives when dumping a dog.
I agree, this sounds like a guy who wanted to get rid of his dog without being criticized for doing so (and who knows, maybe get a little undeserved sympathy too). :(

pitbulliest
October 16th, 2005, 04:15 PM
lol are you guys kidding? I work with animal control all the time..they're useless...progress ave is the one that we get all the complaint calls about too!

The guy brought the registration and the muzzle order...so uhm..he wasn't kidding.

Puppyluv
October 16th, 2005, 04:23 PM
If he has the doccuments then ok, it just seems odd confusing a pug and a pitbull :confused: :confused:

pitbulliest
October 16th, 2005, 04:38 PM
honestly..don't be surprised.... during the public hearings...it was already mentioned that this would happen....they predicted the fact that "misidentifying" would become a word that is used commonly.

LL1
October 16th, 2005, 05:40 PM
I work with TAS all the time,all locations,they do a good job.Scan the order and registration and white out his name and post it.
lol are you guys kidding? I work with animal control all the time..they're useless...progress ave is the one that we get all the complaint calls about too!

The guy brought the registration and the muzzle order...so uhm..he wasn't kidding.

Schwinn
October 17th, 2005, 11:08 AM
I don't have an opinion to the validity of the story, but given some of the other BS that's been going on, I wouldn't be completely suprised. The thing that bothers me, however, is if this guy was in such tears, why would he just give up the dog? The fact that it doesn't have to be micro-chipped, and it doesn't have to be muzzled until October 28 would be enough for to tell any idiot who threatened me to pound salt and dare them to try to do something. I'd love to have it happened, just so I could drag thier sorry butt through every paper and media outlet saying the supposed authorities not only don't know dog breeds, but don't know laws, either.

I don't know what is true and what isn't, but I know enough to tell that someone in the situation was stupid.

If you do have a copy of the order, I hope you forward a copy to every media outlet with a note. Hopefully someone will pick up on the idiocy.

mastifflover
October 17th, 2005, 12:07 PM
lol are you guys kidding? I work with animal control all the time..they're useless...progress ave is the one that we get all the complaint calls about too!

The guy brought the registration and the muzzle order...so uhm..he wasn't kidding.

I have to agree with you I found TAS to be of the mind set "oh well, whatever"
This type of behaviour is what we all talked about the city doing and surprise, surprise they are pulling this crap.

happycats
October 17th, 2005, 12:15 PM
I have heard nothing but horror stories about the animal control on progess!!

When my cat went missing (many years ago) I checked there daily to see if he turned up, and a staff member pulled me aside and told me I better come daily,as alot of the animals that don't get claimed after 3 days, end up in experimental labs!!

I don't believe this man is lying, I'm sure if he didn;t want the dog, he would have returned it to the THS!!

Roxy's_MA
October 17th, 2005, 12:16 PM
OK I need a little help here :o , What is TAS

LL1
October 17th, 2005, 12:17 PM
Great post Schwinn,it does not make sense at all,which is why I dont buy it.

And there are several TAS locations,all with different staff.Never mind that there is no proof of this "story",to lump all TAS staff in 5 locations as being the same is absurd.That would be like saying all Mastiff owners are X.

LL1
October 17th, 2005, 12:18 PM
Toronto Animal Services.
OK I need a little help here :o , What is TAS

LL1
October 17th, 2005, 12:20 PM
TAS does not sell for research.

He did dump his dog at THS.
I don't believe this man is lying, I'm sure if he didn;t want the dog, he would have returned it to the THS!!

happycats
October 17th, 2005, 12:23 PM
I still don't understand what reason this man would have to lie??!! He still has the dog, doesn't he??

happycats
October 17th, 2005, 12:24 PM
I thought he still had the dog :confused:

LL1
October 17th, 2005, 12:27 PM
Here was the post.
I'm writing from work right now. The guy that called in with the pug mix..he just came into the shelter a few hours ago and surrendered the dog. He said he doesn't want to muzzle it or have any problems with the law, so he doesn't want to keep it. Guess the guy doesn't care, period....that's not the point. The dog is clearly registered as a pug mix...

happycats
October 17th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Here was the post.
sorry :o thats what I get for trying to skim over every post during my lunch!

Luvmypit
October 17th, 2005, 12:32 PM
No apparently he gave it up.

Now if this is true and we have the form in which he it says Pit bull and we have say pic of the dog this could be a very intresting find that could get media exposure.

The thing is Pug and pit bull.... I mean they are so absolutly different its ridiculous. my sister has a pug (5 months old) named Henry and there is no way in h e double hockey sticks that they could be confused. Im thinking if this is true that the shelter maybe gets more funds to fight the "pit bull" problem. Maybe if they have a certain amount of pits in their area/district they get a said amount of funding. This is the only reason I can see for these animal control people tp push such a thing. Unless they are just utterly moronic.

Schwinn
October 17th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Okay, while this situation isn't funny, the thought of this pug sitting there while some idiot runs down the street (who, strangely enough, in my mind's eye looks like Bryant) screaming "AHHHHH!!!!! PITBULL!! AUUUUGHHH!!", IS quite amusing! Especially the part where the pug does the head tilt...

Prin
October 17th, 2005, 01:05 PM
You forgot the snort. :D

pitbulliest
October 18th, 2005, 07:58 PM
LL1... the fact that you work with animal control doesn't tell me anything really....are you the one that's asking for their services, or just friends with people that work there? Either way, THS TRIES to work with them too...except when our investigators make an appointment to meet up at a location for a certain investigation, be it criminal or whatever....90% of the time they don't even show up, so we end up calling the police for backup...who always end up shaking their heads in disbelief at TAS...they are definately getting bad names around the city...I'll tell you that much..
it tells me that the city doesn't give a rat's butt...

I don't have a copy of the papers for that pug mix.......and even if I did get them from the shelter, I wouldn't feel comfortable throwing names of people and their private info all over the net...that is a real person and I'm sure they wouldn't want me giving out their personal information..either way, although it was wrong for the guy to give up his dog just because TAS was dumb as usual, I still feel for him....how can you not?...just take my word for it...I don't have evil intentions...just telling the truth from what I have witnessed about TAS for the pat 6 months of working here...

LL1..I don't know what you do with TAS....but I am the one that ends up getting calls because they don't want to do their job....we've had stray dogs abandoned and running around, where animal services refused to pick them up. Or injured wildlife and stray animals left on the street still alive...gawd, if you have to call the police for that....I dunno what to say!

There was a pitbull left muzzled and tied to a fence outside of a schoolyard a few weeks ago...it was freezing outside, the dog was muzzled, and left there by some jerk...I GOT THE CALL....called animal control..its their job..that's what our taxpayers money pay for...they refused to pick it up...even though it was clearly abandoned and had been left there for hours on end....said to leave it there overnight and if its not gone in the morning, to call them back...

is this supposed to be 24 hour services? I hardly doubt it..the fact that they didn't want to move their azzes out of their warm and comfortable little chairs in that stinkin office just tears me apart...that dog was nearly frozen when one of OUR investigators had to go pick it up in the morning because animal control made up another lame excuse....give me a fricken break....that's all I have to say about TAS...and its not the first horror story either....unfortunately! So you may think that its unfair to say that about all the locations and whatnot..fine, but then I guess I'm just getting stuck with ALL the bad calls? Well there are alot of them..so I dunno what that's supposed to mean...

Sorry guys..I'm getting ticked off now..I'm gonna go..lol

*steps away from computer*

Faceless
October 18th, 2005, 09:24 PM
Animal Control officers hate animals .... Maybe a generalization, but I'm sticking to it. Every single interaction I've had with them, or have heard of, is negative.

No big deal. There are tons of "good" people that just hate animals. Their loss I guess.

LL1
October 18th, 2005, 09:42 PM
I didnt think you would post the papers and I do not buy the story.I also said white out the personal info.I knew it was leading to the person getting rid of the dog.And no,I do not feel for him,it was a lame excuse imo.

I do not believe the other stories about TAS either.If you have proof,great,if not it is borderline libel at best.

I work with TAS,THS and all kinds of Ontario shelters, just like my rescue colleagues do.We rescue from all of them.

To say animal control officers hate animals is ignorant.That is like saying all Toronto people are creeps or all Pit owners are criminals.Unfair,untrue and ignorant.

pitbulliest
October 18th, 2005, 10:55 PM
And you still haven't told us where you work or who for...you don't have to buy it... the fact that I didn't provide you with papers really doesn't mean anything....and the fact that you have friends that work for TAS doesn't surprise me... If you want proof that TAS doesn't do jack, contact one or all of the investigators at THS...you'll have tons of proof.

pitbulliest
October 18th, 2005, 11:58 PM
I'm done with this debate too. I know what I've seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears and I"m convinced....either way, its pointless....I think we can all speak based on our experiences with Toronto Animal Services..... case closed

Luvmypit
October 19th, 2005, 08:45 AM
The least we can do is give Pitbulliest the benefit of the doubt. I have no reason to not believe it except for the fact you can't believe people would be this dumb.


And LL1 you are right to bash all animal control workers is unfounded and prejudicial. I have had a 1 dealing with them and I found the animal control workers very indifferent to my situation. I don't know if that comes from working years going after abusers, picking up dead animals, abandoned, seeing starved and abused animals every day. But that was just one situation and I can't say they handled it wrong at all so I have no complaints.

honestly this thread has become finger pointing. can we tone it down and have a real discussion assuming this situation is real which should have been done in the first place.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 09:09 AM
People are blaming the new law to dump dogs,happens all the time.It is ridiculous.I am not giving my dog up,they have no reason to either.This is happening everywhere.Before it was I am moving,no time for the dog,doesn't match my couch and other bs reasons,the law just adds one more thing to the bs reasons people say when dumping dogs.

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Having no place to excercise or socialize your dog properly, fearing for your dogs safety, fearing for your own safety, fearing someone with a vendetta will make your life difficult just because they can are not bs reasons. I would never give up my dog but I can understand why someone might have to under these circumstances. Having a pitbull that is never able to run and or socialize can produce serious behavioral problems. Much like the kind you see when criminals use the dogs for nothing more than protection and don't care for them properly.

Luvmypit
October 19th, 2005, 09:30 AM
LL1 I completely agree!!! I do not think he should have given up his dog. Coming from a pit bull owner I have no sympathy. I do however have sympathy for him in a sense that they mistreated him at animal control if true.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 11:06 AM
I disagree.You get a dog,you make a commitment.The new law is no reason to get rid of any dog.And nobody "might have to" but they might choose to.Big difference.
Having no place to excercise or socialize your dog properly, fearing for your dogs safety, fearing for your own safety, fearing someone with a vendetta will make your life difficult just because they can are not bs reasons. I would never give up my dog but I can understand why someone might have to under these circumstances.

babyrocky1
October 19th, 2005, 11:07 AM
Hey guys, I have no doubt that the "pug guy" told the THS ecactly what Pitbulliest said, but, we have to remember that as much as we feel victimized, and I know I do, it is possible that the pug guy made up the story for reasons of his own. Personally, I found Animal Control, the one at the Exhibition, to be very much against the ban! On the other side, I have "heard" from people at the vigil, that one in Etobicoke expressed quite directly, a desire to eliminate the breeed. Let me stress pleast, I heard that, I don't know if its true. I think its important to exchange info about treatment that people may be getting under the law, but we cant take everything that everyone tells us at face value. To do that would be doing what the pit bull ban supporters are doing...believing everything that they hear that supports what they already believe. Let me stress that I think that we do need to post these storys but we can't let our emotions get carried away, we have to investigate these things. Forinstance, I am hearing completely opposite stories from AC in different areas. Is it possible that some of them are bad and some good or at least better? If so it would be helpful to know who at AC would be sympathetic and who we should stay clear of if at all possible. BTW I have friends with Pugs who havae had people running away screaming Pit Bull!!!! LOL MB has created a climate of anxiety for people who probably had an underlying fear of all dogs anyways, as well as ourselves, and especially large breed dog owners. Overall hes just made dog ownership and interaction a completely different experience than ever before! ITS CRAZY OUT THERE!

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 11:08 AM
I do agree with you,if he was treated badly, which I do not believe,that would be wrong and I would feel bad for him.I also agree with you that it was no reason to give up a dog.
LL1 I completely agree!!! I do not think he should have given up his dog. Coming from a pit bull owner I have no sympathy. I do however have sympathy for him in a sense that they mistreated him at animal control if true.

Ford
October 19th, 2005, 11:31 AM
Please try to remain civil with each other. While the situation is certainly frustrating and infuriating, from all sides, turning into an arguement doesn't help anyone. Also, please keep in mind that there are those who do not wish to make certain identifying info available, so we would ask that you respect that.

Things happen, and some people are jerks. Sometimes, bad people work for good places. Who knows? Again, though, levelling accusations at each other isn't helpful, nor is it fair given that we do expect a certain amount of anonymity, some more than others.

babyrocky1
October 19th, 2005, 11:42 AM
Heres another weird story, I was on my way to my "secret yard" (for those of you that don't know I have the loan of a fenced yard in my neighbourhood, Thank God!) Anyway a young,:"normal looking" guy actually stops his car and gets out to admire Rocky...he then tells me this horrible story about his pit bull being taken away for being off leash. He tells me he could never get the dog back!!! :eek: So as my knees start to quiver and I start to feel ill, I began to question him. First thing I find out is that this happened BEFORE the MB deal. He finally tells me that what actually happened was that the dog was off leash, yes, but there was a woman in the park who insisted that he leash the dog...he got angry and told her if she didn't shut up he would have his dog kill her..... :eek: Here I was getting all worked up and starting to tell him about the Saving Lily situation etc. etc. and it turns out the guy was a complete A $$ and obviously part of the poroblem....grrrrr! But my initial instincts were to believe that the guy and his dog had been victimized. Unfortunately, not all of the people who are "on side" are as responsible as we are. This guy being an extreme example.
Theres now a really irresponsible pit bull owner in my neighbourhood. I have to worry about his behaviour all the time. His dog is dog agressive and he lets it off leash in the same park as the Pit Bull Hater!!!!

babyrocky1
October 19th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Please try to remain civil with each other. While the situation is certainly frustrating and infuriating, from all sides, turning into an arguement doesn't help anyone. Also, please keep in mind that there are those who do not wish to make certain identifying info available, so we would ask that you respect that.

Things happen, and some people are jerks. Sometimes, bad people work for good places. Who knows? Again, though, levelling accusations at each other isn't helpful, nor is it fair given that we do expect a certain amount of anonymity, some more than others. Exactly, we are all on the same side here, except for the occasional Troll! No Waldo Insite I hope!

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 12:20 PM
I disagree.You get a dog,you make a commitment.The new law is no reason to get rid of any dog.And nobody "might have to" but they might choose to.Big difference.

I disagree. No one saw this BSL coming. You have said you have worked with THS and TAS. If you look at the descriptions of the dogs on the THS website, the little blurb that describes the dogs and their needs, most of them will not be adopted out to an applicant in an apartment. I think this points to a recognition on the part of THS how active "pitbulls" tend to be. So lets say you are renting and now you don't just have a dog, you have a pitbull who is not allowed off lead in public and requires a muzzle off property as well. Lets say you don't own a bike or a skate board you are not a runner and have no private property in town or out? I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong people. Owners who can no longer cope. I think the blame lays with Michael Bryant and this BSL. I also think both THS and TAS could be more helpful by providing space where grandfathered dogs can run off leash. THS has the parks out back and boast about letting the Toronto Police Services, who have thier own resources use the space but will not provide it as a resource to owners of grandfathered "pitbulls" Shame.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 12:28 PM
We don't have to agree.

People have know this was coming for months.I work with all Ontario shelters.

I know many people in apartments with Pits and other high energy breeds.Having to be on on leash and having a muzzle is no reason to give up a dog imo.People that love their dogs will not give them up.

Did THS say why people cant use their fenced areas?Who asked them?TAS does not have any nice fenced areas that I have seen,THS does.Which TAS are you referring to?


I disagree. No one saw this BSL coming. You have said you have worked with THS and TAS. If you look at the descriptions of the dogs on the THS website, the little blurb that describes the dogs and their needs, most of them will not be adopted out to an applicant in an apartment. I think this points to a recognition on the part of THS how active "pitbulls" tend to be. So lets say you are renting and now you don't just have a dog, you have a pitbull who is not allowed off lead in public and requires a muzzle off property as well. Lets say you don't own a bike or a skate board you are not a runner and have no private property in town or out? I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong people. Owners who can no longer cope. I think the blame lays with Michael Bryant and this BSL. I also think both THS and TAS could be more helpful by providing space where grandfathered dogs can run off leash. THS has the parks out back and boast about letting the Toronto Police Services, who have thier own resources use the space but will not provide it as a resource to owners of grandfathered "pitbulls" Shame.

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 12:36 PM
I am referring to THS with regards to the yards. I asked them, the did not respond. I know we don't have to agree but don't think this is as cut and dry as you think it is. I think there are good people out there who really feel they have to give up thier dog. If you adopted a pitbull two years ago you would have had no idea what was ahead. imho ;)

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 12:44 PM
Id call Tim Trow and speak with him directly,he might let you use it,definitely worth following up!

Being in rescue,for me it is cut and dried,people will always do what is easiest,not what is right.It is easy to blame the law and Bryant.Much tougher to accept responsibility for their own actions,responsibility for their pets,and to do the right thing.If it werent for the law they would dump their dogs for another reason.

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Id call Tim Trow and speak with him directly,he might let you use it,definitely worth following up!

Being in rescue,for me it is cut and dried,people will always do what is easiest,not what is right.It is easy to blame the law and Bryant.Much tougher to accept responsibility for their own actions,responsibility for their pets,and to do the right thing.If it werent for the law they would dump their dogs for another reason.

No it isn't just easy to blame the law it is reasonable. We have all read the deputations from the hearings and the warnings of how this legislation is "legislated cruelty"

I don't live in the area anymore but for others, I think you should take LL1s advice and call T. Trow directly. I think THS should have and should be proactive and offer this as a standard resource to people who show up to surrender thier dogs and to people who are adopting and don't own any property.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 01:04 PM
We can just agree to disagree. :)
No it isn't just easy to blame the law it is reasonable. We have all read the deputations from the hearings and the warnings of how this legislation is "legislated cruelty"

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 01:07 PM
We can just agree to disagree. :)
Agreed then.

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 01:09 PM
It's also very easy to make blanket statements absolving animal control of every allegation made against them ...

I can give you one example of the ignorance and stupidity that is rampant at TAS ... Two neighbourhood dogs, a beagle and a Rottweiler got into a tussle, with the result that the smaller dog sustained a small bite to its hindquarters. The owner of that dog, did not really want to make a big deal of it, but was told that it was her duty to call animal control by a park attendant who had witnessed the event, which she did. She called with a hypothetical situation, and asked what should be done in that situation. The TAS rep told her that bites should be reported, but even more so if a Rottweiler was involved, because these dogs are "known to be much more vicious, and something in their brain snaps when they get the taste of blood...if they bite another dog, they will most likely bite a neighbourhood child if given the chance." The rep basically tried to bully her into filling a complaint. Brilliant information totally based on empirical data I'm sure!

Being involved in dog training, I have heard enough horror stories about TAS to realize that they are not all complete fabrications. And I would question anyone who claims to work in rescue who has glowing words for TAS ... especially since they are known to destroy dogs and cats at a much, much higher rate than the THS does. It's actually really simple ... THS cares about the wellbeing of animals, TAS cares about "controlling" animals and the animal population.

Final thing, if someone is demanding that someone authenticate their story by scanning documents, I would suggest that the person demanding this actually authenticate their own identity and prove that they work in a capacity that is in close contact with TAS. What's good for the goose and all ...

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 01:18 PM
I didnt say anything glowing about TAS or any other Ontario shelter.

I didn't absolve them of every allegation.

There are good and bad people in probably every shelter,TAS,THS and the SPCAs included.There are also great people who are wonderful to deal with,some who run their own rescues and some who foster for other rescues.Wide variety.

Your story is heresay,thats all.Every shelter has its bad points,including THS.If you were in rescue you would know that.

Posting the paper would not show the owner who dumped his dog's identity,or the posters identity.



It's also very easy to make blanket statements absolving animal control of every allegation made against them ...

I can give you one example of the ignorance and stupidity that is rampant at TAS ...

Being involved in dog training, I have heard enough horror stories about TAS to realize that they are not all complete fabrications. And I would question anyone who claims to work in rescue who has glowing words for TAS ... especially since they are known to destroy dogs and cats at a much, much higher rate than the THS does. It's actually really simple ... THS cares about the wellbeing of animals, THS cares about "controlling" animals and the animal population.

Final thing, if someone is demanding that someone authenticate their story by scanning documents, I would suggest that the person demanding this actually authenticate their own identity and prove that they work in a capacity that is in close contact with TAS. What's good for the goose and all ...

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 01:26 PM
Hearsay or not, I choose to believe it, because I choose to believe that the person that was told this by a TAS representative had no reason to make it up. You're free to not believe it. I will base my opinion on TAS on my own personal experiences and I'm free to believe that they are not looking out for animal's best interests. Just as you're free to disbelieve any allegation of disgusting behavior that is levied against them by many people.

love my dogs
October 19th, 2005, 01:43 PM
People have know this was coming for months.I work with all Ontario shelters.

You are very wrong LL1.

Yesterday, my mother in law called me to tell me that she heard on the news about a new fenced, leashless dog park possibly coming to my neighbourhood. I said "gee, that's great...too bad Duke won't benefit from that". Anyway, to make a long story short, she did not know that I must have Duke leashed and muzzled.

I have known about BSL since January 8th 2005....but only because that was the day I fell in love with Duke at a shelter. It was the peolpe at the shelter that told me about the ban.....which is why I actually adopted him, to save him.

Aside from the fact that many people do not know about BSL......how does this apply to the guy with the pug, LL1?

He obviously did not want a pit and all the responsibilities that come with being a pit owner, or he would have kept the dog after it had been deemed a pit. In fact, he probably would have adopted a pit to begin with.

Personally, I don't blame the guy, because he is just like everyone else who has been fed the bs about pits and buys into all the media hype.

If he truly thought he had a pug, he probably did not know much about the pit laws, and if THAT was his 1st experience with TAS, then who can blame the guy for getting scared s***less, especially if he also beleives that he has a potential killer on his hands, (thanks to media hype).

In my neck of the woods there is a proposed by-law for increased lisence fees, mandatory liability insurance, microchipping and heavey duty fines for non-compliance. Part of the original proposal (which has been thrown out thank goodness), was also to include that no lisence would be issued to owners unless they lived in "single unit dwelliing".....so, assuming that part of the law made it in, what would you do with your dog if you lived in a condo? Well...if you can't afford to move, and you keep it, you are subject to huge fines and the dog would be taken and pts.

Similarly, it is still unkown if it is even possible to get liability ins. specificly for a pitbull....and if so, how much are we talking? Will the average income owner be able to afford to keep their dog legally?

If I am this scared and unsure as to mine and Duke's future, I can only imagine what this unsuspecting pug owner was thinking.

I'm not saying this guy was right to return the dog, but COME ON LL1....have a heart.

I'm curious as to why some poster's on this thread are trying to detract from the real problem here.

The fact is, that even if this guy was wrong to return his dog, and even if his particular story is not altogether accurate, (which I have no reason to believe it is not) it still does not change the very real threat of mis-identification of breed, in the context of BSL and the heart ache, emotional and financial consequences that it will and already has caused!!!!

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 01:46 PM
This is an old Toronto Sun article, which may seem a bit off topic, but imo states the differences between THS and TAS .... it's all in the mandate as the euthanization numbers show.

http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/inthenews/fighting.html

Animal Welfare - A new meaning to fighting like cats and dogs
By: Peter Worthington

Two years ago, when the city of Toronto opted not to renew its contract with The Toronto Humane Society for animal control, it promised a new shelter on the CN grounds would be up and running by January 1, 2003. The cost was to be around 1.6 million.

At the time, the old THS administration was trying to pressure the city to pay them over $1 million a year for animal control, and didn’t want THS members electing a board of directors, or having a say in how the THS was run.

A membership rebellion elected a new president and board, and a new general manager was installed.

The new board, under Tim Trow, sought to renew its 114-year-old animal control contract with the city, and offered to cut its annual fee by 50%, to $500,000.

No way, said the city-and The Toronto Animal Services (TAS) was born at two or three times the cost of a THS contract. Compared to the THS, I’d argue the TAS has been something of a disaster for animals.


Not only is a new pound behind schedule, but dogs and cats are dispersed to five shelters around the city. The TAS service functions only in daylight hours, five days a week, whereas the THS is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.


When council authorized the TAS, it supported a motion that if the TAS couldn’t get its dogs and cats adopted, they should be given to the THS, rather than killed. This hasn’t happened. Despite pleas, the THS has received no animals from the TAS.

A rivalry almost exists between the TAS and THS- the TAS mandate is to “control” animals, the THS’ to “save” them.


Until it got an extra $70,000 from the city, the board of health recommended “discontinuing the stray cat pickup” and letting the THS do it.

As for dogs, the THS policy is to keep it indefinitely in hopes of getting it adopted. The TAS can kill dogs or cats after five days.


Municipal elections are coming, and those who care for animals should be aware of the record of the THS and TAS.


In 2002, the TAS admitted 3,054 dogs, of which 773 (25%) were adopted and 197(26%) were killed. In 2002, the THS admitted 1, 830 dogs (1,224 fewer than the TAS) yet adopted out 947 (52% or, in actual numbers, 174 more than the TAS) and killed 188 (10% or, in actual numbers, 608 fewer than the city killed). The comparison is odious for the city.


It’s worse for cats. In 2002, the TAS took in 6,066 cats, of which 1,299 (21%) were adopted and 3,400 (56%) euthanized. In 2002, the THS took in 6,063 cats, adopted out 3,938 (65%) and euthanized 1,264 (21%).


Overall, the TAS kills 45% of the dogs and cats it admits annually, and adopts out 23%, while the THS kills 18% and adopts out almost 62%.
What’s more, the city has no full-time veterinarian, while the THS has five full-time and five part-time vets.


When adopting an animal from the city, you have no guarantee the dog or cat is healthy, and you must agree to pay for vaccinations and medical costs. Adopt from the THS and the animal is spayed or neutered, has a microchip, has all its shots and medical insurance for two months and can be returned.


None of this is to suggest that the five municipal pounds outside central Toronto are cruel to animals, but it is to suggest their role of “control” differs from the humane society’s.

It’s been a good year for the THS. It’s financially healthy, its capacity has been expanded to accommodate 900 animals, and has a website (www.torontohumanesociety.com) on which a photo of every stray dog or cat appears as soon as it comes in.


With 115 employees, the THS has a volunteer program whereby dogs get walked and cats get groomed. There’s an aggressive and innovative adoption program (in the window’s of The Bay store, downtown), fund-raising walks, etc. A euthanization room has been turned into a ward for sick cats.


Bureaucracies being bureaucracies, it’s too much to expect the city to reverse itself and get out of the dog-catching business and let the THS do it. But it would save money and benefit people and animals.


When it was threatening to stop picking up stray cats last fall, the board of health, which operates the TAS, warned that “discontinuing city pickup of stray cats will exacerbate cat overpopulation problems, leading to increased risk of animal illness and injury… (and) impede our future ability to control the spread of raccoon rabies in the stray/feral cat population… which may place companion animals and residents at future increased risks.” It makes one yearn for the old days when the Humane Society had all this in hand.

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 01:50 PM
I don't think it is off topic at all. It makes the differences between the two entities very clear. I also think alot of people think the two are one in the same.

Schwinn
October 19th, 2005, 01:52 PM
I was just thinking...if you disagree to disagree, wouldn't that be quite the paradox?

Not trying to sit on the fence here, but I actually agree, to a certain extent with both LL and Dukieboy. There are people who love thier dog, but would feel over-whelmed by the new laws and rules, and would feel that it was not within thier ability to deal with it all, because, after all, it is "just a dog". Myself, I find that reprehensible, considering that my dog, as have all my dogs been, part of my family. But I'm thinking of people who have gotten rid of thier so-called "beloved" pet because of an addition to the family, or because they are moving, yadda-yadda-yadda. They show complete devotion and love until circumstances change, then the pet is gone. They've decided that they can't deal with the work it will take to help thier pet adjust. On the other hand, I do think that there are plenty of people who fit LL's description. They have a dog for status, or just because. Really, thier dog is like a nice pair of shoes, or a favourite jacket...it's just a thing. As soon as it becomes inconveniant (ie they can't just let it out the door, do it's own thing and bring it in once in a while), they'll get rid of it. Any old excuse will do.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 02:00 PM
You are entitled to your opinion.If people do not watch the news,or tv I cant help that.I assume this man knew about the law,he had recently adopted the dog from THS.I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they explained it to him.

I dont think applies to the dog with the Pug/Pit cross.

I dont have a heart for people dumping their companions.I dont think the law is an excuse to dump companions.

You are very wrong LL1.

Aside from the fact that many people do not know about BSL......how does this apply to the guy with the pug, LL1?

He obviously did not want a pit and all the responsibilities that come with being a pit owner, or he would have kept the dog after it had been deemed a pit. In fact, he probably would have adopted a pit to begin with.

Personally, I don't blame the guy, because he is just like everyone else who has been fed the bs about pits and buys into all the media hype.

If he truly thought he had a pug, he probably did not know much about the pit laws, and if THAT was his 1st experience with TAS, then who can blame the guy for getting scared s***less, especially if he also beleives that he has a potential killer on his hands, (thanks to media hype).

Similarly, it is still unkown if it is even possible to get liability ins. specificly for a pitbull....and if so, how much are we talking? Will the average income owner be able to afford to keep their dog legally?

If I am this scared and unsure as to mine and Duke's future, I can only imagine what this unsuspecting pug owner was thinking.

I'm not saying this guy was right to return the dog, but COME ON LL1....have a heart.

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 02:01 PM
I was just thinking...if you disagree to disagree, wouldn't that be quite the paradox?

.

No, we agreed to disagree, it is at a certain point the only reasonable thing to do. No sense beating a dead horse.

Not all dogs that end up surrendered have irresponsible owners. Some folks get sick, some even die. Shame on them!! My point is just that the circumstances faced by dog owners affected by BSL are for some, more than they can cope with, given thier resources.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 02:08 PM
Peter is very pro THS,and close pals,all of his articles have that slant to them.People have tried to get him to write about the inside story,he will not.You will not see any of the negatives ever mentioned in his column.That is common knowledge.

I do not judge a shelter on euth numbers,most in rescue that I know do not either.

Pitbulliest posted about 24/7 service from TAS,do they provide that or not?

Euth numbers do not show which dogs came in dead,which were euthed at owner request,which were euthed as they dying.They also do not show how many were sent to rescue,or how many have suffered sitting in cages for years on end.

This is an old Toronto Sun article, which may seem a bit off topic, but imo states the differences between THS and TAS .... it's all in the mandate as the euthanization numbers show.
The TAS service functions only in daylight hours, five days a week, whereas the THS is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
None of this is to suggest that the five municipal pounds outside central Toronto are cruel to animals, but it is to suggest their role of “control” differs from the humane society’s.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 02:11 PM
This man was neither.You are talking apples and oranges.
Not all dogs that end up surrendered have irresponsible owners. Some folks get sick, some even die. Shame on them!! My point is just that the circumstances faced by dog owners affected by BSL are for some, more than they can cope with, given thier resources.

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 02:36 PM
There must be a thinnly veiled line between "common knowledge" and "hearsay"

In my world, it's common knowldege that TAS is filled with a bunch of animal-hating people.

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 02:39 PM
This man was neither.You are talking apples and oranges.
No I think he fell into the can't cope, not enough resources bit.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 02:43 PM
LOL!Guess you're not in rescue and dont deal with them very often.Believe whatever you like,thats your choice.I deal with facts.

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 02:52 PM
Do you deny the facts that Peter quoted in the article, specifically about the differing mandates and the euthanization percentages? You think that such a large variation in the number of animals euthanized doesn't speak to the shelter's committment to saving animals, or what is more important to them? How about the 5 day period?

By all means, if the article isn't credible, please debunk it with the facts that you so love.

Luvmypit
October 19th, 2005, 02:56 PM
I think its better to say we know were these abandoners are coming from (in this case) but that doesn't mean we condone it.

I certainly do not.

Obviously if some is sick/old/dying/dead/significant loss of income/loss of residency ect.... I can totally understand and would never judge BUT if its b/c you thought your dog was a pug or collie or mastiff or whatever and was labelled a pit I cannot understand why through thick and thin suddenly doesn't apply anymore.

When I adopted my pit bull (pre bsl) or any of my rainbow bridge dogs I made a commitment to them. In my opinion dogs/cats are relentless in their love for us. You can beat your dog to a pulp and he will get up and lick your face.

So basically what I am trying to say I understand his reasons for giving up his dog but feel that he was still wrong in doing so. I feel the same thing he felt for what a day? and I still have my real pit bull and wouldn't change hin for the world.

Schwinn
October 19th, 2005, 03:02 PM
No, we agreed to disagree, it is at a certain point the only reasonable thing to do. No sense beating a dead horse.



Sorry, I understood what you said. I'm out of ice-cream, so that was just my weak attempt at making a joke.

Everytime I reply, since I'm at work, between the time I start and hit submit, there are another ten posts.

Also, on one hand, I can sympathize with the guy if he wanted a pug, and thought he got a pitbull, and didn't want the (for lack of a better way of saying it) "hassle". On the other hand, I'd REALLY like to see a picture, if possible, because I'm still having a hard time figuring out how a pug can be mis-identified as a pit, or vice-versa. Again, I'm not doubting or supporting the issue, because nothing would surprise me, but this definitely falls into a "this I have to see for myself" situation. There was definitely stupidity to be had somewhere here. And if he really did care about the dog, I would think he would say to his vet, "Hey, what is this?" We got Daisy because we felt sorry for her, not because we wanted a pitbull. Once we got her, there was no way we would be giving her up, no matter what we were told. We'd research and fight tooth and nail to keep her if we truly did love her (which we did and do)

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 03:12 PM
The fact that this legislation includes Staffordshire Bull Terriers as "Pit bulls" may be part of the problem. Since they are somewhat smaller than the traditional APBT and Amstaff, it will open the way for even small dogs with larger heads and smooth coats to be forced to fight the reverse onus and prove that they are not "Pit Bulls."

Dukieboy
October 19th, 2005, 03:20 PM
Almost time to go home, I will check back tommorow because I am sure everybody has thier own take on this.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 03:36 PM
As I said,the euth numbers are meaningless.They do not show which dogs came in dead,which were euthed at owner request,which were euthed as they dying.They also do not show how many were sent to rescue,or how many have suffered sitting in cages for years on end.

Some facts for you in response to the errors in Peter's article:

THS does not alter all pets before adoption.Neither does TAS.

TAS does not do a rabies shot,as rabies shots have to be given by a vet and they do not have vets there to do them.TAS animals are given the combo shot before adoption and a certificate to get money off the rabies shot at a vet.THS gets the vaccine with rabies included.Not a big difference

THS and TAS dogs and cats are microchipped.

TAS offers 2 low cost spaying and neutering clinics. THS does not. Big line up of course as it is very popular.

TAS also has volunteers to walk the dogs,like THS.I assume less volunteers but I do not have the numbers.

I answered my own question,TAS does have a 24 hour emergency line.I myself call 222-TIPS and the SPCA for after hours emergencies.

TAS is open 6 days a week,not 5.I would not call it daylight hours either,as they are open M-F to 7 pm.

TAS does not have room for the animals they have now,they could not take in all the TAS animals.

THS can kill animals after 5 days too,no different than TAS.

Not only is a new pound behind schedule, but dogs and cats are dispersed to five shelters around the city. The TAS service functions only in daylight hours, five days a week, whereas the THS is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

A rivalry almost exists between the TAS and THS- the TAS mandate is to “control” animals, the THS’ to “save” them.

As for dogs, the THS policy is to keep it indefinitely in hopes of getting it adopted. The TAS can kill dogs or cats after five days.


In 2002, the TAS admitted 3,054 dogs, of which 773 (25%) were adopted and 197(26%) were killed. In 2002, the THS admitted 1, 830 dogs (1,224 fewer than the TAS) yet adopted out 947 (52% or, in actual numbers, 174 more than the TAS) and killed 188 (10% or, in actual numbers, 608 fewer than the city killed). The comparison is odious for the city.


It’s worse for cats. In 2002, the TAS took in 6,066 cats, of which 1,299 (21%) were adopted and 3,400 (56%) euthanized. In 2002, the THS took in 6,063 cats, adopted out 3,938 (65%) and euthanized 1,264 (21%).


Overall, the TAS kills 45% of the dogs and cats it admits annually, and adopts out 23%, while the THS kills 18% and adopts out almost 62%.
What’s more, the city has no full-time veterinarian, while the THS has five full-time and five part-time vets.

When adopting an animal from the city, you have no guarantee the dog or cat is healthy, and you must agree to pay for vaccinations and medical costs. Adopt from the THS and the animal is spayed or neutered, has a microchip, has all its shots and medical insurance for two months and can be returned.

None of this is to suggest that the five municipal pounds outside central Toronto are cruel to animals, but it is to suggest their role of “control” differs from the humane society’s.

love my dogs
October 19th, 2005, 03:40 PM
LL1 you said "apples to oranges"......does that mean that sometimes it is okay to dump your pet with ths?

You are completely confusing me because in one post you say it is NEVER okay, no excuse....so somebody gives you examples of other circumstances...then you say "apples to oranges".

You also said that everybody already knows about the bsl laws, and when I gave you an example of someone who doesn't, you say...."it's not my fault they don't read news". So you are acknowledging that some people DON'T know.

Besides,.... reading the news (which doesn't give you all the facts) does not make you an informed person when it comes to BSL. I read everything I can get my hands on, and still have questions.

Also, why would THS inform about BSL to someone adopting a pug? The OP did not say this was a pug/pit x.......just pug X. My point was that the man did not know he had a pit....he thought he had a pug, so even if he did know about BSL, it would not apply to him.

I'm curious why you would hold the owner responsible for abandoning thier pitbull if the law is designed to make it virtually impossible for owners to keep them. That is letting the government off without taking responsibility for the very laws they shabbily created.

Granted, the provincial ban does not create nearly the problems that many of the bsl municiple by-laws do. I know that this is not an issue for GTA, so the pug owner did not need worry as much as if he were living in another city, like mine!

LL1, what would you do if, for example, you were told today that you will need 1 million liability insurance, to reside in single unit dwelling, $135 lisence, $50 microchip, $20 sign on your door, all by Jan.1st 2006?

Let's pretend you say "I'll find a way".....you come up with the $205 to meet the licence, microchip and sign requirements. You've been trying to get insurance, but have not found a provider who will insure liability on pitbulls, you also have not found a single unit home that is within your approved price range. It is Jan. 1st, and ACC will not re issue your dog licence because you have not met all of the conditions. Since it is illegal to own an unregistered pit, if ACC comes to visit you face $10,000 fine, and your pet would be removed and PTS.

What will you do?

These are very real situations that pit owners face. Since you seem to have no compassion for the predicamen that pit owners have been put in, I can only assume that you are pro BSL. Am I right in this assumption....please tell me I am not.

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 03:57 PM
I see you are an apologist for TAS, and I'm starting to believe that your connection to them is more than just in rescue. No matter.

Saying the Euth numbers are meaningless is ridiculous. The numbers are so far apart, that to discount that difference by the quantification issues you brought up is seriously stretching things. Instead of offering facts, you are offering conjecture to backup your view that the TAS is not substantially different than the THS.

The "errors" you bring up are not even relevant to what we were discussing. How is the fact that the THS doesn't spay or neuter all their animals before adopting out have anything to do with whether or not the TAS is filled with people who's first priority is not "saving" aniimals?

Are you suggesting that the fact that the THS doesn't have the room to take all the TAS animals is why TAS rejected their offer? That's hogwash. Also, even if the THS has the authority to euthanize healthy animals within 5 days, how often do they do it? The implication is that TAS exercises this "right" much more often. Do you dispute that to?

What I see from your reply is mostly skirting the topic. Frankly, I don't see how your response rebuts anything that was brought up.

As I said,the euth numbers are meaningless.They do not show which dogs came in dead,which were euthed at owner request,which were euthed as they dying.They also do not show how many were sent to rescue,or how many have suffered sitting in cages for years on end.

Some facts for you in response to the errors in Peter's article:

THS does not alter all pets before adoption.Neither does TAS.

TAS does not do a rabies shot,as rabies shots have to be given by a vet and they do not have vets there to do them.TAS animals are given the combo shot before adoption and a certificate to get money off the rabies shot at a vet.THS gets the vaccine with rabies included.Not a big difference

THS and TAS dogs and cats are microchipped.

TAS offers 2 low cost spaying and neutering clinics. THS does not. Big line up of course as it is very popular.

TAS also has volunteers to walk the dogs,like THS.I assume less volunteers but I do not have the numbers.

I answered my own question,TAS does have a 24 hour emergency line.I myself call 222-TIPS and the SPCA for after hours emergencies.

TAS is open 6 days a week,not 5.I would not call it daylight hours either,as they are open M-F to 7 pm.

TAS does not have room for the animals they have now,they could not take in all the TAS animals.

THS can kill animals after 5 days too,no different than TAS.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 04:09 PM
Im confused.What you asked me was:
"Do you deny the facts that Peter quoted in the article, specifically about the differing mandates and the euthanization percentages? You think that such a large variation in the number of animals euthanized doesn't speak to the shelter's committment to saving animals, or what is more important to them? How about the 5 day period?

By all means, if the article isn't credible, please debunk it with the facts that you so love."

I thought I did that.I am not skirting anything.Implying I work for TAS is kind of funny,I do not work for them,and many people here who know me,know that.You can believe what you like though,matters not.

The numbers are meaningless.To say TAS kills x number is absurd.Same as the adoption numbers for both are meaningless.It does not say how many went to rescue,and would have been killed by TAS or THS if rescue has not taken them.I dont know what more I can say about that.

All shelters who want to save animals and reduce the numbers of homeless and euthanzied animals alter them all.Period.Thats a pretty common view in rescue,maybe that is why my perspective,including what is important,is different than yours.

I dont know why TAS rejected the offer,I was not there to see how it was presented,or to get their response.It would only be my opinion,not a fact.

All shelters euthanize animals.Some faster than others.My experience is that some keep them endlessly,and it is slow kill and unfair.Most people I know in rescue have the same view.A year or two in a cage is no life imo,so I dont think that is a glowing recc for any shelter.TAS and THS are both rescue friendly imo.I have dealt with both.Both have held dogs and worked hard to get rescues for dogs they feel are unadoptable.I think that is a good thing.I dont know how many animals are euthed by either shelter in 5 days,you dont know how many and neither does Peter.None of us knows the reasons for it either so it would be ridiculous to comment on that.Conjecture and opinion only,no facts whatsoever.

I see you are an apologist for TAS, and I'm starting to believe that your connection to them is more than just in rescue. No matter.

Saying the Euth numbers are meaningless is ridiculous. The numbers are so far apart, that to discount that difference by the quantification issues you brought up is seriously stretching things. Instead of offering facts, you are offering conjecture to backup your view that the TAS is not substantially different than the THS.

The "errors" you bring up are not even relevant to what we were discussing. How is the fact that the THS doesn't spay or neuter all their animals before adopting out have anything to do with whether or not the TAS is filled with people who's first priority is not "saving" aniimals?

Are you suggesting that the fact that the THS doesn't have the room to take all the TAS animals is why TAS rejected their offer? That's hogwash. Also, even if the THS has the authority to euthanize healthy animals within 5 days, how often do they do it? The implication is that TAS exercises this "right" much more often. Do you dispute that to?

What I see from your reply is mostly skirting the topic. Frankly, I don't see how your response rebuts anything that was brought up.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 04:16 PM
It was apples and oranges as the man was not sick or dying.Dead people cant dump pets.I would think someone terminally ill should make arrangements for their pet,so you are right I should have clarified that.I actually would hope they make arrangements with rescues or family,not TAS or THS.

I have not met anyone who did not know about BSL,I guess some people do not read the news or watch the news or language or literacy could also be a barrier,but it is reported in various cultural papers that are not in English.

I would like to see the dog and see what cross it was listed as,but that is not going to happen.I will see if I can find out,I have friends at THS as well.

I do not believe the law is designed to make it impossible to own them.I own one,as do many of my friends.People can always choose to dump them,regardless of any law.They do NOT have to.

Hypothetical situations are just that.Yes I would find a way,as will everyone I know who is a responsible owner.

I am not proBSL and I have a Pit cross.I am against irresponsible people blaming the law and using it as an excuse to dump their loyal companions.


LL1 you said "apples to oranges"......does that mean What will you do?

These are very real situations that pit owners face. Since you seem to have no compassion for the predicamen that pit owners have been put in, I can only assume that you are pro BSL. Am I right in this assumption....please tell me I am not.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 04:18 PM
Thats wonderful!Your companions are lucky to have a home with you!
I think its better to say we know were these abandoners are coming from (in this case) but that doesn't mean we condone it.

I certainly do not.

When I adopted my pit bull (pre bsl) or any of my rainbow bridge dogs I made a commitment to them. In my opinion dogs/cats are relentless in their love for us. You can beat your dog to a pulp and he will get up and lick your face.

So basically what I am trying to say I understand his reasons for giving up his dog but feel that he was still wrong in doing so. I feel the same thing he felt for what a day? and I still have my real pit bull and wouldn't change hin for the world.

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 04:28 PM
No, you didn't debunk anything. You claim that to say TAS kills X number of animals vs. THS kills X number of animals is useless, but one problem ... they also show percentages of animals killed per intake. To say that the fact that one shelter euthanizes less than 10% of its dog intakes, vs another shelter euthanizing 26% of its dogs (and lets not even bring up the cat percentages), that's a pretty significant difference. The overall percentages, like Peter says, puts the city to shame.

It's pretty clear that what he also says is true: THS is there to save animals, TAS to control them.

I don't doubt that you may know some "nice" people who work at TAS. I'm sure there are "nice" people that work at munitions plants too. Doesn't make the company they work for any more moral.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 04:32 PM
Yes the stats are meaningless imo.If you could get real stats we could have a meaningful discussion about them.Common sense would also tell you that the ones doing animal control are doing more euthanizing and picking up of dead or nearly dead animals.The line about controlling versus saving is BS and an opinion.

I also know many nice people at THS,and most other shelters in Ontario.Know bad ones at many of them too.I dont see your point.

You can have your opinions about THS,dont worry,I wont make any snide posts implying you work there or are their "apologist".I can respect people with different opinions than me.I respectfully suggest getting involved and learning more.


No, you didn't debunk anything. You claim that to say TAS kills X number of animals vs. THS kills X number of animals is useless, but one problem ... they also show percentages of animals killed per intake. To say that the fact that one shelter euthanizes less than 10% of its dog intakes, vs another shelter euthanizing 26% of its dogs (and lets not even bring up the cat percentages), that's a pretty significant difference. The overall percentages, like Peter says, puts the city to shame.

It's pretty clear that what he also says is true: THS is there to save animals, TAS to control them.

I don't doubt that you may know some "nice" people who work at TAS. I'm sure there are "nice" people that work at munitions plants too. Doesn't make the company they work for any more moral.

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 04:37 PM
You say the stats are meaningless, I say they are not. Especially considering the fact that the THS takes in more animals and kills a smaller percentage of them, to me speaks volumes.

There you go, saying you won't make snide comments, and then you end your post with a snide comment. Made me laugh.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 04:41 PM
How is saying I suggest getting involved and learning more snide?

An accurate breakdown of stats would be helpful.We dont have that.And warehousing animals in any shelters is not fair imo.I wont praise any shelter for that.I would like to see those numbers in addition to the actual situations around euthanasia.

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
October 19th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Ugh, I hate Michael Bryant! I hope this law turns around and bites him in the ass.

Faceless
October 19th, 2005, 04:46 PM
Pretentiously suggesting that someone is ignorant and needs to educate themselves about something is snide. Nice bob and weave though, with the "who,me?" explanation.

Frankly, at this point I'm not interested in pursuing this topic anymore, because you strike me as the type that would try to dismiss any facts that are presented to disprove your view of the matter. (You really think that the stats for euths from TAS includes already dead Roadkill? LMAO!)

So thanks for coming, and I'll continue believing that TAS is the scum of the earth ... :thumbs up

doggirl
October 19th, 2005, 04:49 PM
Wow, this is quite a shocking discussion.

For the record, I also work with rescues all over Ontario. In my experience:

TAS has always been quite easy to deal with. I have received and still occasionally receive requests from them to take in some of their animals.

THS USED TO BE great to work with. They actually did some vetting gratis for us on dogs we rescued. However they have undergone some huge changes. They no longer ask for our help, in fact from my understanding they now do not use rescue except for "unadoptable" dogs.

Also, even when they were more rescue-friendly, one thing that really bugged me is that they claim on their site and elsewhere they are "NO-KILL". Well we took 3 puppies in a row from them, all of whom were going to be euthanized if we didn't take them; one was diagnosed by the shelter vet as "severe dominant aggressive" at 12 weeks of age, because he protested when the vet looked at his teeth - two others at age 14 weeks who were going to be PTS because they were "shy".

There may be people who hate TAS but there are also people who hate THS as there are people out there for every rescue/shelter, who thinks they are the most evil organization around.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the "they have no reason to lie" garbage. IME people LIE LIE LIE. Half the time I don't think they even know it because they've convinced themselves they're justified. The guy gave up his dog b/c it had to be muzzled? Sorry, I'm with LL1 on this one - IME virtually every person who gives up their dog truly feels it's not their fault and there's nothing they can do. No sympathy here. It's simple - you want the dog, you'll find a way to overcome obstacles that arise with ANY dog ownership. You're not committed, there'll be one excuse or another eventually.

I do not believe that incident happened as described. It just doesn't make sense. I totally don't believe the story about the Rottie, tasting blood, etc. I cannot see someone that ignorant surviving a day's employment at any animal control facility/shelter. I think it's just another case of what I see every day, someone with a story that serves a purpose within themself...like absolves them from any responsibility they felt over doing the wrong thing.

Also, so what if THS listed the dog as a pug cross? The legislation is simple - any dog with physical characteristics resembling the targetted breeds. Is there a picture available? I disagree with LL1 in that I DO think the legislation is doing HORRIBLE things but bottom line this owner chose to give up his dog - because someone told him he'd have to muzzle the dog?? And do you know how many shelters/rescues are dishonest (or plain ignorant) about breed ID - do you know how many Pit Bulls/Am Staffs are adopted out by people who know what they are (or don't) and call them "terriers" "terrier crosses" "Staffs" "lab crosses" or any number of other dishonest labels? What the adopting shelter/rescue labelled the dog means nothing - if THS called him a pug cross that's just someone's opinion.

I have not dealt recently with TAS but to be honest my overall unbiased experiences with both TAS and THS are that TAS is easier to work with and that THS is dishonest and has some freaky radical people on board. That's just my opinion, not saying either is a bad organization, but I would not support THS. They have lots of money and do good things, but they also used LOTS of donor money to pay lawyers not long ago when they had a major infight. Not to mention the whole spay/neuter thing, and an abundance of blanket policies that I think weaken their adoptions policies as a whole - turning down good people based on a blanket policy, and giving animals to people who match their criteria but who aren't committed (like the guy in the original post).

Oh and one last thing, when you're looking at euthanasia stats - keep in mind how easily they are manipulated - eg are their stats based on how many ADOPTABLE animals are euthanized? Because it's someone's own judgement what makes a dog "unadoptable" - it might be a Lab that's energetic, a dog that's completely untrained, a dog that has demodex or a cat that needs a dental or a particular diet. The 3 puppies (who are all very well-tempered, happy dogs) were labelled "unadoptable" at THS. Plus, TAS offers services such as low-cost euthanasia. A recent applicant had their dog put down there because it was a very large dog and to do it at their vet was I think about $150 or $200 more. LOTS of people use TAS for euthanasia, so just looking at stats without understanding the bigger picture can be very misleading.

Ford
October 19th, 2005, 04:50 PM
Since you aren't interested in participating, I'll lock this and thank you for ignoring previous requests to keep this civil. The play room is now closed. Thank you children.

Another possibly productive thread lost due to bickering and childish sniping, despite requests to keep it on a mature level.

LL1
October 19th, 2005, 04:52 PM
I was posting based on the information you had posted Faceless.You said you were involved from a trainer aspect I believe,and getting involved with either TAS or THS or rescues would give you a broader understanding.

I apologize if my post insulted you,it was not the intent.

I do like to deal with facts.We do not have them so I feel it is virtually impossible to compare euth numbers without them.

I forgot to add the greatly discounted euthanasia that TAS offers,thanks doggirl.

You can of course think what you like Faceless.It wont change a thing.

doggirl
October 19th, 2005, 05:06 PM
LL1 you said "apples to oranges"......does that mean that sometimes it is okay to dump your pet with ths?

You are completely confusing me because in one post you say it is NEVER okay, no excuse....so somebody gives you examples of other circumstances...then you say "apples to oranges".

Was LL1 not responding to someone saying "some people get sick, some people die"? It IS apples and oranges. Dead people don't surrender pets. And being sick is pretty vague, do you mean cancer or quadriplegia or something? That IS apples and oranges to "not wanting to deal with" muzzling a dog you claim you love.

My point was that the man did not know he had a pit....he thought he had a pug, so even if he did know about BSL, it would not apply to him.

There was a lot of coverage of those fighting BSL who were pretty vocal about what the legislation said, and that EVERY dog owner had reason to worry.

Question, what if the man did not know he had a dog with a malignant melanoma? Would you be easy on him returning the dog to the shelter? What if he didn't know he had a dog that needed dentistry, or had a kidney stone? What if the dog was represented as 2 or 3 years old but his vet said nah, he's more like 7 or 8. I'm surprised LL1 is in the minority here, I am in full agreement that you take on a commitment when you adopt a pet and you have a responsibility to rise to whatever challenges come up. They're hardly ever foreseeable. This is pet ownership.

I'm curious why you would hold the owner responsible for abandoning thier pitbull if the law is designed to make it virtually impossible for owners to keep them.

C'mon! How is it "virtually impossible"?? The major thing is that you have to chip and alter your dog and pay about $20 for a muzzle and put it on your dog when they're out of the house. PITA? Yeah. BAD LAW? Yeah. "Impossible for owners to keep their Pit Bulls"? I guess if you're not committed. Yeah, they've made it a PITA but it is up to the individual people whether their dog is worth it...and certainly they must know that their dog will most likely die if they "can't cope" with the muzzle law...

LL1, what would you do if, for example, you were told today that you will need 1 million liability insurance, to reside in single unit dwelling, $135 lisence, $50 microchip, $20 sign on your door, all by Jan.1st 2006?

From what I can see of LL1 my money is on that she'd do it. I would. re the rest of your post which I'm not quoting only for space, there are insurers; there are landlords; there are microchip clinics - hell sometimes you have to be inventive. When some owners are "finding a way" but others are just dumping their dogs you have to ask why do some people fall into one category and others in another. Is it the law? Or is it that some people are very committed, and others aren't as committed? You can say it would have to do with resources but speaking from experience I can say that there are wealthy people dumping their dogs, and poor people complying with the law.

We are all responsible for our own actions, and if I choose to abandon my dog in a shelter, I can blame whoever I want - but ultimately, the decision was mine.