Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

680 news

seeker
November 13th, 2005, 07:14 AM
Just heard of a dog fight involving a pitbull named Copper. Theysaid this will be the 1st test of the new law . They mentioned that other dog had some cuts but they didn't say how bad either dog was hurt.
Has anyone heard anything ?

Invicta
November 13th, 2005, 08:51 AM
This from the Toronto Sun

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/11/13/1305044-sun.html

Pit bull attacks dog
Not wearing muzzle on its outing
By BRETT CLARKSON, TORONTO SUN

A Scarborough family defended their 2-year-old pit bull as a "sweet dog" yesterday after it attacked and caused minor injuries to a neighbour's pooch.

The pit bull, named Copper, wasn't wearing a muzzle when it snapped at the other dog -- because it's owners didn't know Bill 132 had come into effect.

The Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act came into effect Aug. 29. The law requires, among other things, that all pit bulls to be muzzled when outside the home.

The grace period ended Oct. 28, meaning dog owners now have no excuse.

Penalties under the act are high, but Toronto Animal Services (TAS) couldn't comment yesterday on the nature of the penalty Copper's family may be facing.

Cherie Ann Day, whose 18-year-old daughter owns the pit bull, said yesterday Copper wasn't muzzled when a family friend named John took the pup out for a walk on Calderstone Cres. near Kingston and Port Union Rds.

"I don't know who's liable -- if it's my daughter or if it's John's responsibility because he was the one who was walking the dog," Day said, noting nobody intended to break the law.

Copper charged the neighbour's pet -- described as a large poodle-type dog -- and clamped on to its nose through an iron fence. Panicked neighbours rushed over and beat Copper until they could pry him off the dog.

Day and her worried family watched with saddened faces as TAS officer Mike Evans escorted Copper to an awaiting van to be taken away to the TAS facility at 821 Progress Rd.

Day and her family fear their dog could be put down. Evans simply said he didn't know if the dog would be destroyed. A decision would likely be made by tomorrow.

"I feel really bad. I was terrified," Day said. "I didn't know what to do. I was yelling at Copper to let go. I don't know why it happened. I was so shocked. People in my house were crying."

At the house where the neighbouring dog lives, the pooch could be heard barking inside but there was no answer at the door.

Day said she hadn't met the family, but her friend John had said the dog suffered puncture marks on its lips and nose, and didn't require professional attention.

She said her daughter, whom she declined to name, would be crushed to see her pet being taken away.

"My daughter, who owns the dog, will be completely devastated," Day said. "She loves Copper to pieces. She sleeps with him every night.

"He's just a sweet dog," she said. "Pit bulls were never my favourite -- I'm a golden retriever girl -- but I grew to love him."

chico2
November 13th, 2005, 11:39 AM
I sympathize with the young owner,but more so with the dog,he will pay the price for one mans stupidity.
I believe leashlaws have always been in effect for ALL dogs and now the unreasonable muzzle-law for pitties.
If I owned a pit-bull,I certainly would be aware of all the goings on to protect my dog,so something like this would never happen.
If the poor dog is not put down and they get him back,I hope they've learned a valuable lesson.

chico2
November 14th, 2005, 07:55 AM
I was mistaken thinking Copper was off leash.I saw him on the news yesterday being taken away:sad:
Apparently the"friend"who walked him was not able to hold him back from the barking dog on the other side of the fence.
The owner can expect high fines and I do not know if Copper will suffer the ultimate punishment:mad:

SnowDancer
November 14th, 2005, 08:31 AM
My sympathies are with the dog that was attacked. Thank heavens there was a fence or I expec the dog would have been seriously injured or dead. I expect that the owner's did take the attacked dog to the vet to ensure that there was no infection. I certainly would have and also would not have engaged in any conversations with the media or with the owner's of the pit bull. Certainly the pit bull will be the one to suffer, but the bottom line is that the friend of the family was allowed to take the dog out without a muzzle and he did attack the neighbour's dog. The OP said that the owner's of the dog were not aware of the muzzle law, hence I think that whether it was a friend or the family the point is academic - there was no muzzle and the dog attacked and would not back down. Fortunately it would appear that neighbours intervened. I do not understand how anyone living in Ontario who owns a pit bull could not be aware of the law. I do know that many people are ignoring it - there are 3 pit bulls running loose in my neighbourhood, owned by supposedly good families. One came after my dog while I was walking him and would not respond to his owner's call to Stay. The other pulled a heavy work glove from my hand and shredded it - the owner said he was giving me a "kiss" - right. I said nothing as I did not want to incite the dog further as I had my dog with me. Much like the post last week regarding the pit bull that hurt the "older lady with the very saggy skin" - she was calm during the episode, but then called Animal Control. Probably the best way to have handled it. I understand that many pit bulls are very sweet dogs, but I am very wary on the streets now with my dog.

Dukieboy
November 14th, 2005, 09:29 AM
We don't really know all the circumstances here. I am sorry you feel that way about pitbulls. Mr. Bryants campaign of hatred has been very successfull.

Probably the reason the poodle owner did not want to talk to the media or get the dog vet attention is because they were probably breaking the law as well. Just guessing. Probably was off leash in a school yard.

What I don't understand is that the news report stated that they were given a certain amount of time to comply after the incident before animal services took the dog away. So what? They couldn't get thier hands on a muzzle for the dog? Don't really understand. The way the story reads it sounds like animal services told them to obtain a muzzle by Saturday evening and they didn't.??

BullLover
November 14th, 2005, 10:13 AM
The question lies here. What was this woman doing letting her friend walk her dog? First off....I would never allow a friend to walk my dogs. This story has a small hole in it. It states that a friend was walking the dog, yet Day yelled for him to let go. Was Day and the friend walking the dog together, but the friend was holding the leash? Was the dog even on a leash? Too many questions....so little answers. I feel for the 'poodle type dog' that was attacked and for the dogs owner.... :(

It's people that aren't informed that are going to hurt us all.

mastifflover
November 14th, 2005, 11:30 AM
I feel for the dog it will be the one to pay the price. But ultimately every dog should be on a leash. I have been charged by labs and of course we know the worst offenders are small dogs, (for some reason the owners of these dogs do not feel they need to have obedience training). But Animal Control is now going after anybody not obeying the leash law, not just Pit Bulls and Staffs because everybody knows that it is about the owners not the dogs.

Copper'sMom
November 14th, 2005, 12:09 PM
What a crappy job reporting this story.
yesterday after it attacked and caused minor injuries to a neighbour's pooch.
wasn't wearing a muzzle when it snapped at the other dog

So what the heck happened exactly????????? There is a HUGE difference between attacking and snapping.:mad: Dogs snap at other dogs every freakin' day for crying out loud.:mad: Oh this is just frickin' ludicrous. I think this whole thing was blown way out of proportion.

Luvmypit
November 14th, 2005, 01:23 PM
ACtually I have met 1 pit owner who had no idea about the muzzle law.

And those who do don't know the extent of the law and what the consequences are. The only reason you would know about it is through the media (papers, newscast).

Let me ask this.... HAs any Pit bull owner received ANY literture, guidance, pamplets a simple letter from the province outlining or explaining this law? I know City of London sent out there papers on behalf of their city bylaws but did anyone recieve anything from the province?

So if you dont read the news and don't watch the news then how the h e double hockey sticks do you expect to know? Wouldn't you as an owner of a particular breed like to be informed formally of these laws?

Maybe they were lying about not knowing and I do agree there are owners out there not following the law. But I also don't think its unbelievable that some don't. Its very easy not to know. Does that mean the dog is at more fault no. Its all owner there and I feel sorry for both dogs.


I feel sorry for both dogs. But if this was any other dog it wouldn't get in the media as usual. A dog bit another dog.. just like that dog lunged at my leashed muzzle pit... but no one cares about that. You can say the same about a pit about any other dog...... They all can bite, THEY all run loose if you let them, they all can attack another dog or get into a dog fight.

Luba
November 14th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Anyone heard and update on Coppers fate?

Poor sweet doggie.

Dukieboy
November 14th, 2005, 03:01 PM
I wonder why CP24 isn't covering this. CTV has an updated story as of 1:15pm today. Decision is expected tommorow. The dog is reportedly under quarantine, does that mean he didn't have his shots?

chico2
November 14th, 2005, 03:45 PM
What I heard was,the Standard Poodle was barking in his fenced backyard,put his nose through the fence and the friend leading Copper was not able to hold him back.Copper bit the Poodles nose and he got small puncture-wounds on his nose.
I am sure it hurt the poodle and I am sorry for him,but Copper is going to pay with his life..:sad:
Also,there is no way,a pit-bull owner who takes good care and loves his dog,would not know about BSL.

kigaro
November 14th, 2005, 05:03 PM
I wonder why CP24 isn't covering this. CTV has an updated story as of 1:15pm today. Decision is expected tommorow. The dog is reportedly under quarantine, does that mean he didn't have his shots?

quarantine is just the term for 'locked down'

unfortunate incident, however, the owner can't really blame anyone but themselves. a two year old dog that can't be controlled on leash has not been properly trained.

they should slap a fine on the owner, and make it mandatory for them to attend obedience training, however, i fear the dog will be destroyed given the current climate surrounding pit bulls.

BullLover
November 15th, 2005, 12:07 PM
I agree that this owner should get a huge fine. I don't think that the dog deserves to be pts because it didn't go after a human. I sympathize for the other dog's owner and thank god that it wasn't a human being that was on the other side of the fence....But, I don't believe that he should be pts because of this. Heavy, heavy fines and manditory obedience training, yes. Death, no way!

Roxy's_MA
November 15th, 2005, 12:15 PM
I fear this dog will be pts. The sad thing is any other breed would probably just be fined. It doesn't sound like a serious attacks. Dogs snap and bite other dogs everyday. Unless it is some really brutal attack you usually don't hear about it on the news....um unless it is a pitbull.

jesse's mommy
November 15th, 2005, 12:19 PM
Jesse was bit by a JRT the other week and had a gash taken out of her nose. You think anything would come of that? NO!! But if it was the other way around -- being that she is part pit, it would have been a huge ordeal. I hate this. Now Jesse is actually afraid of small dogs and hides behind me because of this. Do you think they report that? No, why would they? It would show a pit in a good light!

Luvmypit
November 15th, 2005, 12:21 PM
Well I know a pit owner that until about 3 - 4 weeks ago had no idea, mind you they were out in a small town outside Kingston if that makes a difference that the ban had gone through. Has completed 3 obedience level classes. Dog is an angel and the owner is nothing but a responsible owner. She doesn't watch TV only sometimes, doesnt get the newspaper and only reads it online on an occasion. I know this b/c I asked her how the heck she didn't know.

So to say not one PB owner doesn't know and if they didn't they are irresponsible is just not true. Just ask the 2 people who asked me if my dog bit someone b/c of the muzzle. They had no idea there was a ban mind you there not PB owners. But they were dog owners.

I personally think that the province should send out some sort of info so we can better protect our dogs. I received nothing and my dog is registered.

Not only that, I know about the ban but am still unclear on all the rules. And as far as I can see through these threads I am not the only one who is unclear.

Still doesn't mean this family really didn't know b/c really it is hard not to know but not impossible.

Roxy's_MA
November 15th, 2005, 12:37 PM
Jesse was bit by a JRT the other week and had a gash taken out of her nose. You think anything would come of that? NO!! But if it was the other way around -- being that she is part pit, it would have been a huge ordeal. I hate this. Now Jesse is actually afraid of small dogs and hides behind me because of this. Do you think they report that? No, why would they? It would show a pit in a good light!
You are right! If it was reversed and the poodle bit the pit bull, none of us would even be hearing about it. I am sure the poodle owners would have got a fine, a slap on the hand and that would be the end of it.

Also you would be suprised at how many people don't watch news or really have a clue about what goes on in their own province. I am not sure what the gov't has done to make sure people know about this, but they can't rely strickly on the media to get the word out about the new laws.

Luba
November 15th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Odd this hasn't been picked up by other media.....

chico2
November 15th, 2005, 03:59 PM
I am only thinking the way I would if I owned a pit-bull and I do follow the news and what goes on in the world.
I just think it would be hard to miss what is going on,especially regarding a dog,whom I love,no matter where in Ontario I lived.
The wellfare of my dog would be outmost on my mind.

Also,I wish the media would report correctly,on the TV news the other dog did certainly not look like a standard poodle:mad:

babyrocky1
November 15th, 2005, 09:23 PM
On the other hand Chico, I mean all of us, here, live and breath this stuff, but there was tons of media coverage for the August 29th date, all though we tried to get the media at the time to make it clear that the muzzling etc. date was October 28th. that date was burried somewhere and there wasn't much interest. Even the night before some of us had heard it would take place at midnight of the following day. . There really wasn't much in the way of communication. Alot of pit bull owners were waiting to see what happened after the Aug 29th date, when nothing did, they thought it wouldn't be enforced:eek:

Dukieboy
November 16th, 2005, 07:53 AM
Has anyone heard anything about the fate of this dog yet? There didn't seem to be any media yesterday.

chico2
November 16th, 2005, 08:09 AM
Babyrock,I understand what you're saying,the media have not exactly plastered all the info and dates for everyone to see and understand.
But personally I would dig and find out,so there would be no chance my dog would ever be taken from me..

kellyla
November 16th, 2005, 01:15 PM
We received a letter from the City of Hamilton telling us through the licencing records it shows we own a Pit Bull.It goes on to say that there has been amendments to the Dog owners liability act,what constitutes a pit bull then tells about the grandfathering clause.It then goes on to describe what you have to do to your pittie(muzzle,leash,fixing,etc)
It then says responsible pit bull owners should learn about and prepare for the changes in the DOLA.
They also sent a list of frequently asked questions like
Do I have to send my Pit Bull out of the province or have it euthanized?,Is my dog a Pit Bull?Who decides if they are a pit bull?What sort of documents do I need to travel with my pit bull?What if I am just passing through Ontario with my Pit bull?DO I have to register my pit bull?I am being harassed when walking in public with my pit bull.What should I do?

I have made copies of this and put one in the car(Boston likes the car)and I carry one with me when i go for a walk just in case.It is a pain but you just never know when you are going to need it.

Luba
November 16th, 2005, 01:28 PM
Very good idea to keep copies

I haven't heard and update on Copper :(

Loki
November 18th, 2005, 02:22 PM
http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20051118-009/page.asp

Dog Gone


The province’s controversial pit bull law went into enforced effect three weeks ago, but some Scarborough residents claim they didn’t know about the highly publicized legislation and that unfamiliarity with the rules has resulted in a death sentence for the family pet.

Cheri Ann Day said she wasn’t aware of the regulations surrounding pit bulls that require the breed to be muzzled in public and now her daughter's dog will be put down.

“Copper is being put to death because he wasn't properly leashed,” she said. “It had nothing to do with her (the daughter) because she wasn't home and now her dog is going to die.”

The creature (pictured) bit a neighbour’s dog while a family friend was walking it as a favour. Because the family agreed to have the dog put down no charges will be laid.

The law sparked intense debate between animal rights advocates and those who believe the breed is inherently violent. The legislation officially went into effect on Aug. 29, 2005, but the government gave owners a 60-day grace period before authorities started to enforce the rules.

Under the new law, people can keep their pit bulls for the remainder of their natural lives, but they must be muzzled and leashed in public and they must be sterilized. Puppies born in the province after Dec. 1st will also be destroyed.

Anyone who defies the ban faces a fine of up to $10,000 or up to six months in jail.

chico2
November 18th, 2005, 04:18 PM
I am very sorry to hear that:sad: sorry for another life lost..
I suppose they just did not love Copper enough,or might not have had the money to fight for his life.
We will probably hear more similar stories,where the owner has the dog PTS,it's a sad state of affairs in Ontario:sad:
Copper.RIP:pawprint:

babyrocky1
November 18th, 2005, 04:49 PM
It may be partially because they didn't have the money to pay for the lawyer, but also they were told that they could go to jail!!! Maybe they felt that they would recieve a ten thousand dollar fine and couldnt come up with the money, and thier dog wasn't muzzled so they probably felt that they couldn't win! After what happened to Sixteen, I doubt if they would have won...:mad: What choice did they really have??? And thats the horror of it all! They say its legal for us to keeep our dogs, but HOW legal is it really? Theyre more than ready to KILL the dog for any minor infraction of this horrible law,. the process seems to be that they want you to have the dog put down, they dont charge you if you agree to let them murder your dog! Ofcourse people are going to be scared. A law abidig citizen in every other aspect and then suddently your convicted of a crime, you have a criminal record....This law and this "law maker" have got to go....Yep I know Im re-stating the obvious1 Just gotta rant

twodogsandacat
November 18th, 2005, 05:25 PM
It may be partially because they didn't have the money to pay for the lawyer, but also they were told that they could go to jail!!! Maybe they felt that they would recieve a ten thousand dollar fine and couldnt come up with the money, and thier dog wasn't muzzled so they probably felt that they couldn't win! After what happened to Sixteen, I doubt if they would have won...:mad: What choice did they really have??? And thats the horror of it all! They say its legal for us to keeep our dogs, but HOW legal is it really? Theyre more than ready to KILL the dog for any minor infraction of this horrible law,. the process seems to be that they want you to have the dog put down, they dont charge you if you agree to let them murder your dog! Ofcourse people are going to be scared. A law abidig citizen in every other aspect and then suddently your convicted of a crime, you have a criminal record....This law and this "law maker" have got to go....Yep I know Im re-stating the obvious1 Just gotta rant

I have been told by a knowledgeable source…..a K9 officer that it is a Provincial offence and will not result in a criminal record. Of course does that matter when you are in jail with real criminals? Any law with reverse onus that can result in somebody being locked up needs to be fought and of course this one will.

That’s about all I got out of him but according to BC law (and I’m sure I could find the same in Ontario if I looked hard enough).

http://www.cba.org/BC/public_media/criminal/205.aspx

Who has a criminal record?
Anyone in BC 18 or older convicted of a criminal offense has a criminal record. A criminal record doesn’t include convictions under provincial laws like the Motor Vehicle Act. Criminal records are not public, but police, prosecutors, customs officers, and other officials can still see them.

babyrocky1
November 18th, 2005, 05:31 PM
I find that very confusing....Im not doubting it, but its mind boggling to me that one could go to jail, and not have committed a crime??? I guess, if you think that you could go to jail for un-paid parking tickets etc...I just find it strange...and if it isn't a crime, yet, they can enter your home without a warrent:confused: Its all such a contradiction! Well I guess thats why we invented surpreme courts:D

twodogsandacat
November 18th, 2005, 05:35 PM
I find that very confusing....Im not doubting it, but its mind boggling to me that one could go to jail, and not have committed a crime??? I guess, if you think that you could go to jail for un-paid parking tickets etc...I just find it strange...and if it isn't a crime, yet, they can enter your home without a warrent:confused: Its all such a contradiction! Well I guess thats why we invented surpreme courts:D

Yep I saw it again last month when I was in Ottawa. A nice big grey building with a dark roof...........and lot's of seating inside.

Somebody should send Bryant directions. Never mind they've been there a couple of times lately for their discriminatory practices and their broken promises. He knows where it is too.

seeker
November 18th, 2005, 08:32 PM
This is one of the points Ruby is planning to challenge . The law as it is written is very vague as to how it defines a pitbull and the reverse "onus" is against the constitution because it is up to the court to prove beyond a doubt that a person is guilty not for the person to prove he/she is innocent.What the reverse onus does is make us prove the dog is not a pit when it should be that the court has to prove the dog is one. To send a person to jail the law MUST be very defined otherwise we will be sending more innocent people to jail .

babyrocky1
November 18th, 2005, 08:54 PM
This is what we all assume as Canadian citizens, but , how is it that Bryant is coming right out with the words "reverse Onus" in regards to people charged with gun crimes...As in CHARGED not Convicted, he then went on to say they would have to prove they did not participate, now Im paraphrasing, but this is on the same legal briefs show as the Pit Bull thing! Did you get a chance to listen to it Seeker? its on this site, I think Invicta posted it. Anyway he said it just as if it were the most acceptable thing in the world to say. With the pit bull law, we used the words "reverse onus," he now seems proud of it. I mean Im all for tough laws for gun crimes but not at the expence of civil rights! And not just to make examples. People (or dogs) are not examples, they should judge each case on its merit! If a kid gets mixed up in the wrong crowd he should not have his life thrown away. Especially since there is a strong link to poverty and housing projects in these crimes. They need to solve the root problems. They have been presented with these problems for so many years and have been warned that these things would happen but until theres political will, no one cares. And now Bryant is going to try and make this his new platform Give me a break!!!! I hate to bring this up cause its partison and I know lots of people dont like Jack Layton BUT when Jack was running for mayor.I was watching the debate and they were asking the candidates what the worse threat to public safety was, I dont remember what the other candidate said but I do remember Jack saying GUNS! Idont want to get ito a debate about partys, my point is that that had to be about fourteen years ago. So reactions a little slow. We have had eight years of Tory gov, and way too many years of Dalton, through those years poverty and housing issues have hit a point of crisis. Im not making excuses for guns and gangs but its like terrorism, the terrorists are evil but the evil comes from some sence of legimate issues. I dont believe most people are "inherritantly evil" with the possible exeption of certain politions:D They are truly a breed apart. You can listen to the Bryant interview, at www.brok.ca

twodogsandacat
November 18th, 2005, 11:38 PM
Oh this reverse onus came up way back in October and somebody used the N word (the four lettr N word).

Bryant understands scapegoating and hatred. He sneaks in his anti- constitutional laws by targeting those he perceives the public doesn’t care about bikers, gun gangs and of course pit bull owners. The only problem is that sooner or later everyone will fall under one of his targeted categories and then it will be too late for them.

The litmus test for reverse onus laws however is that an innocent person could be convicted and have to serve jail time. Bryant feels his law will hold up but the reality is that because no evaluation system was put in place ahead of time it is possible that a mixed breed owner for example who believes they are be a law abiding citizen could be convicted on the say of one vet.

I predict the reverse onus section will be stripped out, as a judge will see that Bryant uses reverse onus far too many times not just in exceptional cases.

As for Bryant himself I plan on using reverse onus on him. I will be in his riding questioning the billings by his wife's law firm to his office. I plan on making sure everyone in that riding knows that his wife's firm was in the top ten billers to his office. If most judge him as guilty without proof then TFB. Let him convince them that it was all above board, that’s his job, mine is only to cast doubt.

seeker
November 19th, 2005, 10:49 PM
Bryant can grandstand on as many issues as he likes and pass as many laws that do nothing but appease public demand for action , but do nothing to fix the real problem . Mr B is mistaking action for accomplishment and that will be a big part of his undoing .
As for him passing all these laws and including reverse onus , none of them will change our charter and when challenged these laws will more than likely be tossed . At that time he will stand on his podium and say something like . I Passed these laws in the interest of public safety but now the courts rule against them . He will try to make it look as if He tried but was blocked in the process. The fact is he doesn't have a clue as to what should be done and will try to save face by passing unconstitutional laws. It seems he thinks "If He throws enough S**t at the wall some of it will stick"