Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Watch City TV tonight at 6pm: Pit Bull story

lezzpezz
October 28th, 2005, 07:04 AM
I was watching tv last night and happened to have on City TV from Toronto. They announced that there would be an indepth story on the impending Oct. 29th pit bull issues and what it means for dogs....

BullLover
October 28th, 2005, 09:23 AM
Will this be on tonight? Or tomorrow the 29th??

Dukieboy
October 28th, 2005, 09:56 AM
It is tonight. The law is in full effect today.

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20051028-002/page.asp

I'll betcha animal services is havin a busy day.

BullLover
October 28th, 2005, 10:36 AM
By October 28, 2005, pit bull owners will have to have their dogs leashed and muzzled in public and sterilized. Additionally, owners aren't allowed to train them to fight, and can't let them stray.

This is sort of funny. Additionally, owners aren't allowed to train them to fight.......What kind of jack a$$ would train them to fight?

Dukieboy
October 28th, 2005, 10:48 AM
I hated the whole article. Was it me or does it read like some step by step guide for pitbull haters?



What to do if you see a pit bull thatís not abiding by the restrictions:

Municipalities are responsible for animal control, so you should contact your local animal control or by-law enforcement office. In emergency situations though, contact police.
If youíre bitten by a pit bull because the restrictions arenít being followed, you can bring a civil action against the dog's owner for damages.
The new laws stipulate that the owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack regardless of whether the owner is at fault or negligent.

Courtesy Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General


WTF?????

Dukieboy
October 28th, 2005, 12:11 PM
City TV will be interviewing TAS staff for the segment tonight.

gdamadg
October 28th, 2005, 12:11 PM
Once again a biased news story, makes me feel great. I think I am going to start counting the days until I can leave this province. I am actually ashamed to say I am from here.

love my dogs
October 28th, 2005, 01:57 PM
Did you see that sweet little puppy in the pic? I suppose even 10 week old pups have to wear muzzles too?

So the poor little guy's first visit to the vet for shots is going to be that much more horrible because he will have to wear a muzzle.

Stupid law....stupid government.

My 14 year old son and I were listening to this on the radio this morning. I turned it up when they said...$10,000 fine, 6 months in jail, dog pts.

Maybe now he gets how serious it is....I've been trying to tell him, but he just thinks I'm being silly. He doesn't really get how or why his best buddy is so hated and everyone is so threatened by these dogs.

You know what teenagers are like.....rebellious, risky, and just plain dumb sometimes. Why do they never believe their parents? He doesn't think it's a big deal to take Duke out without a muzzle.

Well hopefully hearing it on the news like that will make it sink in. He seemed really shocked to hear about jail time and pts.

I said "Well, I guess it just goes to show that just because something is the law, it doesn't mean it is always just, fair or right. But we still have to abide by the law, or we could end up losing Duke, or going to jail."

babyrocky1
October 28th, 2005, 05:37 PM
Hey fellow persecuted ones....Im at work so if anyone can up-date the news coverage on city I would greatly appreciate it! :fingerscr

mastifflover
October 28th, 2005, 06:40 PM
I am at work too so keep us in the know. This is the most ludicrous thing I have heard in a long time. Some loser said to me ( I should say yelled at me) this morning that it is against the law for me to not have a muzzle on my dog. So I asked him what type of dog is it that is suppose to be muzzled and he said a pit bull like yours, I said really you obviously went to the same school of ignorance as Michael Bryant because my dog would probably be one of the largest pit bulls on record and if you knew what you were talking about you would know that this is an English Mastiff, not even related to a pit. But I would be more concerned about those little ankle biter dogs than the large dogs. By the way the only ones needing muzzles is people like you and MB. I feel bad for the **** you must put up with on a daily basis, my hat goes off to you for not killing these idiots. I do not have as much restraint as you.

babyrocky1
October 28th, 2005, 06:45 PM
Sorry your going through this too Mastiff lover. Don't feel too bad Ive heard of Pug owners going through the same thing!!!! It mass hysteria out there! Or a witch hunt and I guess we are the witches. :eek:

wdawson
October 28th, 2005, 07:28 PM
I will not muzzle my 6 month old baby.......to go for walks with his 14 year old beagle brother, muzzled , will turn this puppy into a steryotipical pitbull,
I will take my chances , and if needed have my day in court. I have met all the requirements other than the muzzle. these dogs are baby sat 5 days a week by my 70 year old parents , and they have regular dog visitors over daily , and never a problem...........they should enforce a bad owner law.

Or better yet
outlaw bryant

wayne.......pit lover
beathoven....pit\x
george.......beagle

mastifflover
October 28th, 2005, 07:29 PM
You know there are the ones that you think you can educate then there are the MB of the world and they will just never get it. Hopefully this stupid law will not last very long when no one enforces it, that is my wish.

babyrocky1
October 28th, 2005, 08:19 PM
Your baby is beautiful WDawson, welcome to the board. :sorry: sorry we have to meet under such horrible circumstances.

wdawson
October 28th, 2005, 08:23 PM
he is my baby...........just a big suck.

babyrocky1
October 28th, 2005, 08:27 PM
My baby six years old-hes a big suck too!

wdawson
October 28th, 2005, 08:33 PM
but is not considered in the law

babyrocky1
October 28th, 2005, 08:41 PM
I mean my doggy baby is six years old- I wish he werent considered in the law! My human baby is twenty four, shes a big suck too!!! LOL ;)

Golden Girls
October 28th, 2005, 09:31 PM
******* *******

twodogsandacat
October 28th, 2005, 10:06 PM
Actually, this is a very good law as many people breed these dogs just for this reason. It's these people who ought to get fined for being a**h***'s - and not because their pittbulls'.
These breeds are being singled out just because they are strong - but it's the people who take advantage of them by training them to fight in dog rings for $. Tickets are sold - it's a huge huge biz for some...

Having returned from animal relief efforts in Louisiana I assure you all that there are many people who do fight them. Want something closer to home? The London area of Ontario is also a hot bed of dog fighting.

Six months in jail for this? This crime desensitizes and demoralizes those involved with it as well as those forced to witness it and many of those are children. Children who will grow up with no respect for life. I support serious time for this. Sentences like the Tant conviction in South Carolina - thirty years. I donated to the South Carolina Attorney General's Anti Dogfighting Task Force shortly before this sentence was handed out....in my opinion it is the best $250 US I ever spent.

If I ruled the world I would have one solution for convicted dog fighters. Throw two of them in a cage with a couple of bats and broken bottles. Tell them one of them is going to jail for twenty years and the other for two...open the cage in an hour and see what their decision is.

As for the law itself...it is a very bad law if you read it as it is written. It is ILLEGAL TO TRAIN A PIT BULL TO FIGHT. It is NOT ILLEGAL under the DOLA to train a Cane Corso, Bulldog, Doberman or ANY OTHER breed of dog to fight.

It should of read it is illegal to train any dog to fight. It should also of read it is illegal to abandon ANY dog not it is illegal to abandon a pit bull.

Michael Bryant cares nothing for the welfare of these dogs or any dog for that matter.

If all laws were written this badly we would all be up in arms. Imagine this as a law.....it is illegal to beat a white woman. Get my point?

The DOLA is a bad law and does nothing to address dog safety or the issue of dangerous dogs.

jesse's mommy
October 28th, 2005, 10:08 PM
You go two dogs! I totally agree!

BMDLuver
October 29th, 2005, 07:50 AM
There are nightly pitbull fights conducted in Montreal as well. The b***ards keep switching locations and times...

This witchhunt is disgusting and I'm so sorry that all you responsible owners have to be singled out for owning a pitbull.

Please comply with the laws about muzzling... don't risk your pet's life to make a statement. I can't imagine how difficult it is to look into your dog's trusting eyes and clamp a muzzle on them.. it's so very sad.

lezzpezz
October 29th, 2005, 02:31 PM
I have posted this on another thread visited by London Pit bull owners, but I thought it was necessary to share this:

The witchhunt continues.....

Did any of you watch the City TV video bit on the Provincial ban?

Did any of you notice her statement, and I quote the female reporter here:

Animal Services (Toronto) is "relying on YOU (the general public!) to call in and report Pit bulls"....

Let me get this straight....there is not enough Animal Services staff, (ACC in London), to do the job, most of whom have no training in breed identification in the first place, and they want to pass the job onto Joe Public, who, in all likelihood, has even LESS likelihood of identifying a dog as pit bull!!

Just look at Michael Bryant, as a prime example: Here's a guy who can't tell his azz from a hole in the ground and HE proved this most clearly, when he could not tell one breed from another while handed the "guess which one is a pb test"! On camera, no less...

Am I to assume that the average person is now responsible for reporting pit bulls in their midst to the "authorities"? Gimme a break!

Does anyone else see a problem here???? :eek:

I foresee a LOT of finger pointing, (shades of the Salem witch trials!), and I think it is deplorable that the job has now been passed onto the uneducated and now fearful public....What the heck is going on here??

twodogsandacat
October 29th, 2005, 04:55 PM
Actually the DOLA says to report to local Animal Control, as enforcement is a municipal responsibility. In an EMERGENCY police can be contacted.

If you are reported (and I hope nobody is) then it is unlikely that a AC officer will arrive in time to witness an infraction therefore the WITNESS must be willing to testify against you thereby identifying themselves. I'm sorry JOE PUBLIC doesn't care that much to take the time and show their face.

As for those wilfully making unfounded complaints just to get back at a neighbour....I hope some decent cop charges one of them for making a false statement and the charge sticks. Insiist upon it. Making a false statement to a police officer was a crime the last time I checked.

Stay safe and wait for the appeal.

Conners
October 29th, 2005, 06:02 PM
I don't get cable and for some reason I can't view the CityPulse24 video's. Can someone enlighten me PLEASE? What is being said and done on there???

doggirl
October 30th, 2005, 10:36 AM
I will not muzzle my 6 month old baby.......

Realize that you are gambling with your baby's life. Like it or not it is now law and if you really want to do something worthwhile, join the fight against it, don't simply refuse to follow it. Your failure to comply with the law can result in your puppy being seized and put to sleep. Whether it's a bad law or not.

I hope that your dog is also spayed/neutered. If so it is a restricted dog. If not it is BANNED. This means your dog can be seized immediately and put to sleep no questions asked. Cannot be even adopted out (if the shelter wanted to), they are not allowed to neuter it to make it legal. Anyone with an unspayed mature bully right now is gambling with their pets' lives.

I really hope you rethink your decision-making. There are enough unwanted Pit Bulls being put down without having wanted ones being destroyed as well just because someone flagrantly disobeyed the laws.

mastifflover
October 31st, 2005, 09:19 AM
First of all besides the law being bullsh** if you have not registered your pit then make sure you register it as anything but a pit some good combos are rhodesian ridgeback and lab, hound cross if they have long ears, be creative but if you can avoid pb do because I would not want to see anything happen to your babies. If someone does think they are animal control and they have reported you and your dog tell them that you will also be asking the animal control or the police to file a counter charge against them for filing a false report. I think we have to do everything we can to protect the innocent dogs from the uneducated public and politicians. Owners of other breeds we must come to the defense of PB and there owners any way we can. I wish all of you luck

gdamadg
October 31st, 2005, 10:49 AM
I wish that in hindsite I would have registered Sprint as a Giant Red Pug, lol, as mentioned in another thread. I think they are a South American breed.

mastifflover
October 31st, 2005, 11:59 AM
You know we should just make up our own breeds. Since the idiots at city hall have no idea what any dog other than a Golden and GSD.

Conners
October 31st, 2005, 08:04 PM
I talked to Lorna Chamberlain from our London Humane Society and said I had wished I had put Shasta down as a St. Bernard. She told me it would make no difference what I had her put down as, as they will be going by what the Pit bull discription is by the Ontario Law.
This is sooo crazy. I heard today in MD...that's in the States but not sure which one, they are talking about banning Huskys for pete sake. This is getting more and more insane all the time!

jesse's mommy
October 31st, 2005, 08:16 PM
Even though I'm from the States and there aren't bans yet, I thought this might be helpful to see. I found it on www.pitbullpress.com
Hope it helps.


B.S.L. ACTION KIT
author: Frank Comer

HERE IS an open letter sent to various news organizations by Frank Comer, Ph.D. We are grateful to have Dr. Comer on the side of the pit bull terrier and thank him for his fine research! Please feel free to use this letter as a guide in writing your own letters! It may also be reproduced - just be sure to give credit to Frank Comer. Thanks. pitbullpress.com

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Currently, there are several states and municipalities around the country that are reviewing bills that seek to ban or severely restrict ownership or possession of a dog that is considered to be a "pit bull" type dog. In the wake of a pit bull attack on a 7 year old girl, Baltimore City Councilwoman Agnes Welch proposed two bills, one that bans pit bulls outright and another that severely restricts ownership. Recently, there was an incident in Washington, D.C. in which a man murdered a pit bull owner after he refused to allow his dog to fight. In response to this incident, D.C. Council member Jim Graham commented that it underscored the necessity of his recently proposed pit bull ban.

This is the kind of logic that sustains the anti-pit bull hysteria. Although these incidents are tragic, let us be careful that we don't misplace the blame for these tragedies. These problems merely underscore the need to review existing vicious dog laws and to hold owners responsible for producing vicious dogs. The D.C. case highlights the fact that this issue is clearly a human problem. The keys to raising any dog in a socially responsible manner are owner education, proper breeding, socialization, training, and love.

Effective legislation should be enforceable, economically feasible, correctly targeted, and reasonably fair. The proposed bills fail all of these criteria. Enforceability of the proposed bills will prove exceedingly difficult, for numerous reasons. The vast majority of all dogs are not AKC or UKC registered, and many problem dogs come from backyard breeding programs that are not affiliated with any established canine registries. Accurate identification of even pure bred dogs is not trivial, as breed standards consist solely of general physical characteristics that encompass a wide range of size, color, and conformation. For example, American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers, two of the breeds that are generally referred to as "pit bull" type dogs, may be any color and may be any weight, typically between 30 and 75 pounds. Thus, any dog with a blocky head, stocky build, and short hair may be mistaken for a "pit bull". These problems are confounded by the fact that unscrupulous breeders often cross different breeds in their attempts to produce aggressive dogs.

To address this situation, the Maryland State General Assembly is considering a measure (HB567) that bans any dog of mixed breed that closely resembles a "pit bull type" dog. The Louisiana legislature is considering a similar statewide measure that intends to ban any dog that derives 1/4 of its lineage from any "pit bull" breed.

Accurate determination of lineage is impossible, as there is no scientific method to determine breed, and mixed breed dogs are very unlikely to have documentation of lineage. Thus, application of such statutes will require the arbitrary judgment of individual enforcement officials in identifying illegal dogs. The lack of objective criteria for breed identification will render the law capricious and unfair.

As a result, any dog may be impounded and destroyed if the enforcement officials BELIEVE that the dog is a pit bull. This clearly represents a violation of the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law. The enforcement difficulties alone will make the proposed measures practically and economically untenable.

Furthermore, such bills will not solve the vicious dog problem, as they do not address the fundamental problem of irresponsible ownership and breeding. Instead, law abiding, responsible dog owners and their well-adjusted pets will suffer, while vicious dogs will remain a persistent problem. If Pit Bull Terriers are banned, the unscrupulous breeders and owners that desire vicious dogs will simply choose another breed as a status symbol.

The recent highly publicized fatal attack on a woman in San Francisco was not by a Pit Bull Terrier, but the little known Presa Canario. Just as the Pit Bull Terrier has replaced the German Shepherd and the Doberman Pinscher as the fabled vicious breed, it is entirely conceivable that the Presa Canario or any of a number of other dog breeds could succeed the Pit Bull Terrier as the archetypal vicious dog. The problem owners will then seek out the vicious dog of the day and the responsible owners who desire Pit Bull Terriers for their outstanding positive qualities will be left to comply with cumbersome and discriminatory statutes.

Any breed specific measure will not serve the goal of public protection. Indeed, breed specific legislation is likely to exacerbate the vicious dog problem by prompting backyard breeders to further experiment with cross-breeding in their quest for vicious attack dogs. Pit Bull Terriers have been the victim of sensational and often erroneous reporting across the country. Many in the media and the misinformed contend that Pit Bull Terriers are inherently vicious and should be prohibited. Such legislation is motivated by fear and misplaced blame, fueled by fallacious media portrayals of the pit bull as a vicious man-eater.

As unbelievable as it may seem in the histrionic climate that surrounds the breed today, the fact is that responsible Pit Bull Terrier breeders have always bred for dogs with a very even and predictable temperament and culled dogs that showed any aggression toward humans. Pit Bull Terriers, as a whole, score more favorably than other breeds on temperament tests (95% of pit bulls pass the examination, compared with 70% for all other breeds). These dogs are highly intelligent, easily trained, very loyal, and eager to please their owners. Unfortunately, irresponsible or ill-intentioned owners try to exploit these traits in order to raise dogs that are aggressive to humans.

As Pit Bull Terriers were historically bred for docility around humans, aggressive or vicious dogs are almost invariably the product of severe mistreatment and abuse. Supporting this notion is the fact that 334 out of 426 pit bull terriers taken in by the Washington Humane Society from October 1999 to September 2000 were considered cruelty cases. The ill will of such owners does not imply that the breed is inherently vicious. Aggressive and unpredictable behavior can be inculcated in any breed as a result of mistreatment and abuse. Pit Bull Terriers have demonstrated their good canine citizenry and suitability as family pets for many years. They have been used as search & rescue dogs, service dogs for the handicapped, police dogs, therapy dogs, drug sniffing US Customs dogs, farm and livestock herding dogs, and lovable family companions.

Until recently, this breed had been revered by the American public as an outstanding family dog. This acceptance was even reflected in television programs, such as "The Little Rascals" and "Our Gang", which featured the beloved dog actor, Pete, an American Pit Bull Terrier. Contrary to media hype, most Pit Bull Terriers still deserve this favorable reputation. Likewise, most Pit Bull Terrier owners are responsible citizens, rather than thugs who want a vicious dog by their side in order to convey a macho image.

The popular media portrayal of all pit bull owners as criminals and drug dealers is tantamount to racial profiling of dog owners. If the Maryland and Louisiana State Legislatures, the Baltimore City Council, and the Washington, D.C. Council enact the proposed bills, it will set a negative precedent that will likely influence other states and municipalities to adopt similar misguided, costly, and unenforceable legislation that does not address the fundamental problem.

The proposed legislation is based on numerous erroneous assumptions, fails to address the fundamental problem, and will drain public resources. For these reasons, these legislative bodies should take the following actions: 1. Reject the proposed legislation, which fails to address the fundamental issues. 2. Establish judicious guidelines for responsible dog ownership and enact legislation that requires dog owners to abide by these guidelines. 3. Review and possibly expand on existing laws to include stiffer penalties for dog abuse and to hold owners responsible for dog attacks, particularly when there is evidence of the owner's intent to produce an aggressive dog.

The state of California addressed the vicious dog problem by first reviewing their existing laws. They then enacted revised legislation that adequately addresses the scope of the vicious dog problem today. The new law more clearly defines behavioral criteria for classifying individual dogs, without reference to specific breed, as "vicious" and "potentially dangerous". The law also outlines the behavior expected of dog owners and prescribes penalties for violating these guidelines for responsible ownership. Owners must take responsibility for their dogs. Irresponsible dog owners who encourage aggression, distrust of strangers, and vicious behavior are culpable for the results of their mishandling. We should not penalize entire breeds and their responsible owners for the stupidity and malignance of a non-representative minority.

Resources:
Cincinnati Law Review article discussing the constitutionality of breed specific legislation:
http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/review.htm
Review of the practicality of breed specific legislation:
http://www.dog-play.com/pitbull.html

{HOME}

babyrocky1
October 31st, 2005, 09:15 PM
Thanks so much for the post Jessesmom, we can always use more amunition against BSL I am to emotionallly drained from the stress of the last few days to read it all now, but we always appreciate posts like that for reference. The more info from the experiences of other places the better. Its nice to hear words of support from over the border :ca: :usa: