Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Ruby press release

seeker
March 13th, 2006, 05:38 PM
Tomorrow at his office there will be a press release giving more information regarding the challenge to bill 132. Try this link
www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2006/13/c1776.html

babyrocky1
March 13th, 2006, 09:22 PM
Well that certainly looks promising...tying the Ohio decision to Ontario, thats got to be goooood! Bryant your looking baaaaaad...hehehe:evil:

twodogsandacat
March 13th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Good luck to Mr. Ruby and all you responsible pit bull owners out there.

BullLover
March 14th, 2006, 08:09 AM
And the fight begins.......

Go get 'em Mr. Ruby.

mastifflover
March 14th, 2006, 08:59 AM
I can't wait till it is defeated then we can go after MB for all the wasted tax payers money

Luvmypit
March 14th, 2006, 11:45 AM
If we actually win and the muzzle order is taken out .. I know.. I will cry.

I will take it outside for the whole neighbourhood to see and I will stomp the crap out of it!!! Ahhh I just feel good knowing one of their star witnesses is the dog warden from Ohio coming of a loss of his own. I hope Bryant and Mguinty will be made to look stupid!

jesse's mommy
March 14th, 2006, 03:41 PM
We are keeping our paws crossed for all of you here!!!

twodogsandacat
March 14th, 2006, 07:15 PM
I hope Bryant and Mguinty will be made to look stupid!

Sorry, it's too late for 'will'.

Loki
March 14th, 2006, 08:25 PM
680 News has an audio clip of the press conference online:

http://680news.com/pages/audio.html#pbull

bluntman
March 15th, 2006, 08:41 AM
The Star covered the story, and makes some good points as to why the ban is being challenged, there are still to many people out there that just can't understand, why anyone would challenge a pit bull ban. Same old, rederick from the bryant camp, The broken record slogan, we are all safer because of bryant's law.
CTV news just covered 5 seconds of ruby last nite, then spoke of how pit bull incidents were down since the law took effect, then went on in lengh about the pit bull that killed a dog, and made it look like the owner was in jail, because of the ban, but actually she is in jail on "other" charges,that were already in the criminal code before the ban, and have nothing to do with Bryant's law.(more dissinformation from the press)

Toronto lawyer to dispute pit-bull ban
Rulings from an Ohio court to be used in legal challenge

To date nobody has been charged under the new legislation
Mar. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM
ISABEL TEOTONIO
STAFF REPORTER


Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby will fight Ontario's pit-bull ban using an Ohio court decision that struck down a similar law in that state.

"It's not often that one gets to start a constitutional challenge here with a little help from our friends in the States, but we thought it significant," he told reporters yesterday at his downtown office.

The March 3 decision by the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals ruled that a Toledo law allowing residents to own only one pit bull, or "vicious" dog, was unconstitutional. The Ontario law is a complete ban.

But Ruby plans to challenge the Ontario legislation using two key rulings from the Ohio decision. First, since pit bulls aren't inherently dangerous it doesn't make sense to have a law to protect people from them. Second, the definition of pit bull is so vague that people may not know if they're breaking the law.

Ruby will square off with Attorney General Michael Bryant in an Ontario Superior Court May 15 to challenge a ban that has drawn immense criticism from pit-bull owners since it came into effect Aug. 29.

When reached yesterday, Valerie Hopper, a spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General, would not go into detail about the government's case but said, "our position is that this is constitutional and improves public safety for Ontarians."

Canada's first province-wide ban, the Dog Owner's Liability Act, pertains to any dogs that fall under the definition of "pit bulls," including Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers, as well as dogs that look "substantially similar" to any of the banned breeds.

People who owned pit bulls before the law was introduced can keep them, but the animals have to be neutered and must be on a leash and muzzled in public. All pit bulls born after Nov. 27 have either been shipped out of province or destroyed. Currently, people are not allowed to breed, purchase or import the dogs. Anyone breaking the law faces fines of up to $10,000 for individuals, $60,000 for corporations and six months in jail.

To date, no one has been charged under the new legislation. However, on Monday, a Toronto woman was charged with unlawfully causing bodily harm and common nuisance, a month after her pit bull killed a Shih Tzu dog and attacked his owner. Ruby is going to court on behalf of Catherine Cochrane, a 23-year-old anthropology student from Toronto who wants to breed her two-year-old Staffordshire mix, Chess.

Ruby said yesterday he would introduce evidence from Dr. Timothy Zaharchuk, who was president of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association when the law was passed.

Zaharchuk argues breed-specific bans don't work, pointing out there are 24 breeds of dogs that are very similar to pit bulls. "Just by looking at a dog you cannot declare it a pit bull there's no way to verify it genetically," said Zaharchuk.

As in the Ohio case, Ruby said the province's definition of a pit bull is "unconstitutionally vague."

"If you're going to jail as a result of breaching a law, you've got to have the kind of certainty that lets you know whether you're committing an offence.

twodogsandacat
March 15th, 2006, 05:49 PM
As in the Ohio case, Ruby said the province's definition of a pit bull is "unconstitutionally vague."

"If you're going to jail as a result of breaching a law, you've got to have the kind of certainty that lets you know whether you're committing an offence.

babyrocky1
March 15th, 2006, 07:28 PM
Im surprised at the "breeding" thing too but it could be just a legal strategy. In order to go to court he needs to have one client. It is not a class action suit, (i think in order for it to be a class aciton we would have to have had legal action taken against us and have suffered damages as a result) its more like a "test case". forgive me if Ive put this badly but this is my personal understanding of a complex legality...sooo anyways, it maybe that to challenge the law, they needed to say she wanted to breed her dog cuz if she broke the law by not muzzling, the dog could be put to death...they need a challenge, so possibly there using the breeding aspect of it.

babyrocky1
March 15th, 2006, 07:34 PM
However, on Monday, a Toronto woman was charged with unlawfully causing bodily harm and common nuisance, a month after her pit bull killed a Shih Tzu dog and attacked his owner. Ruby is going to court on behalf of Catherine Cochrane, a 23-year-old anthropology student from Toronto who wants to breed her two-year-old Staffordshire mix, Chess.

. Whats up with this case anyways, she was charged with something that had nothing to do with her pit bull??? cause the coverage I saw most certainly indicated that she went to jail because of the DOLA which made no sense, why her and no one else? Especially since her dog was apparantly muzzled, Talk about your biased reporting, I knew it couldnt have been correct but I just didnt understand it, and then they showed her and the dog together.

babyrocky1
March 15th, 2006, 08:01 PM
I just listened to the whole press conference. It sounds like we have a really good chance. Did you guys find yourselves answering the questions in your mind before Ruby did? LOL I wish the press conference got more coverage though, but Im sure that May 15th and 16th will be a field day for reporters!

bluntman
March 16th, 2006, 11:28 AM
Whats up with this case anyways, she was charged with something that had nothing to do with her pit bull??? cause the coverage I saw most certainly indicated that she went to jail because of the DOLA which made no sense, why her and no one else? Especially since her dog was apparantly muzzled, Talk about your biased reporting, I knew it couldnt have been correct but I just didnt understand it, and then they showed her and the dog together.

That's exactly what they want you think,(CTV news) that she is in jail because of the new and improved DOLA, thanks to Bryant, they even mentioned the 6 month jail time and max fine. Although the incident did involve a pit bull, she was charged under a pre-existing law, NOT the DOLA. She was charged with unlawfully causing bodily harm and common nuisance,
there is, and always has been laws to deal with vicious dogs(all breeds) and irresponsible owners(all types). This is why the DOLA is crap, it only affects law biding pit bull owners, and there innocent dogs, not people who would use there dogs, in some criminal way, eg... gang banger's and there trained human aggressive dogs.
I would love to see Bryant weasel his way out of this one, Why was she charged under a pre-existing law and not the DOLA, since the DOLA is supposed to deal with, and solve all dog problems? If there was already laws on the books to deal with vicious dogs and owners, WHY did he waste so much time, upset so many people, with a law that only affects law biding dog owners, and there innocent dogs, making them targets for harassment, prejudice, illegal search and seizure, and sets out to eliminate 4 breeds of wonderful loving family dogs?

( I'm waiting Bryant......... We would love to here from you, we know your interns are watching us, lets hear what you have to say)

LL1
March 16th, 2006, 12:22 PM
Wants to breed her mixed breed dog?
Ruby is going to court on behalf of Catherine Cochrane, a 23-year-old anthropology student from Toronto who wants to breed her two-year-old Staffordshire mix, Chess.

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
March 16th, 2006, 01:42 PM
Wants to breed her mixed breed dog?

Ugh, how stupid! Mutts shouldn't be bred, neither should 95% of the purebreds out there.

bluntman
March 16th, 2006, 04:20 PM
Ugh, how stupid! Mutts shouldn't be bred, neither should 95% of the purebreds out there.
Wants to breed her mixed breed dog?

I agree, but remember it's a newspaper article, they rarely get there facts strait, and secondly, ruby will use whatever means possible to debunk this law, even if means breeding a mutt, If everyone else can do it, why can't she? The big picture is get rid of this law by whatever means possible.

In his first press release, he said she wanted to walk her dog without a muzzle for proper socialization, and that's why they where fighting the law, but he can focus on any point in the law, as he see's fit... spaying/neutering, muzzles, leashes, search and seizure, jail time, breed identification, enforcement.... ect..ect..

LL1
March 16th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Sounds very sketchy to me,wonder if the people who donated towards Clay's bill know that it is to support a mutt breeder wannabe.

twodogsandacat
March 16th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Sounds very sketchy to me,wonder if the people who donated towards Clay's bill know that it is to support a mutt breeder wannabe.



OR somebody who says they want to as the only way to challenge the law is to show that it affects you. Then again the only other way to challenge it is to.....get charged.

:fingerscr

seeker
March 16th, 2006, 06:20 PM
Sounds very sketchy to me,wonder if the people who donated towards Clay's bill know that it is to support a mutt breeder wannabe.

That is hardly what is going on here . Why do so many people focus on the small details when the big picture is ignored ?
The government will love this ,now we are arguing amongst ourselves .
Remember "Divided we fall"

LL1
March 16th, 2006, 06:25 PM
I have my own opinion,which is different from yours.I have not been impressed with the lack of communication and information from the start.If you are,thats great.

twodogsandacat
March 16th, 2006, 06:40 PM
I have not been impressed with the lack of communication and information from the start.If you are,thats great.

Well you have me there....I haven't either.

I wonder though if it is a strategic decision. Loose lips sink ships so to speak.

seeker
March 16th, 2006, 07:20 PM
I have my own opinion,which is different from yours.I have not been impressed with the lack of communication and information from the start.If you are,thats great.

Understood about the difference of opinion , it happens all the time .
As for the communication there is nothing new here either . I haven't heard of many cases that are about to be fought in the supreme court that hold regular press conferences during the period leading up to the discovery or case itself in order to keep the public informed . So I guess I'm ok with that too .

Let me clarify it as far as my opinion goes . I think that Mr Ruby has a good a shot as anyone to turn this thing around in our favour . I as an individual have no means to take on the government of Ontario in a constitutional challenge . So I have and will continue to donate to the fund as long as it appears to be the best chance we have .
If someone wins the case based on wanting to breed her dog and bill 132 is overturned I will be quite pleased regardless of whether I support or do not support backyard breeders.

kigaro
March 16th, 2006, 07:38 PM
Sounds very sketchy to me,wonder if the people who donated towards Clay's bill know that it is to support a mutt breeder wannabe.


possibly, however, many laws have been repealed in court based on one case. it only takes one to show the flaw in the structure of the legislation. wade vs. rowe in the us being and example. as for communication, what is it exactly that clayton should be communicating to us (the public)? i was under the impression he was hired to challenge the law in court, not keep the public informed. i for one, am glad is ruby handling the case based on his knowledge of constitutuional law, and his track record for winning case in court. he's a very intelligent man, and if he using the mutt breeder wannbe as his one trick pony, he may have good reason.

alas, only time will tell.

LL1
March 16th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Looks to me, like this is a case to continue breeders rights.I don't consider consider people donating to pay Rubys bill to be the "public" and that is not how the DLCC protrays this issue.The staffie folks don't appear to be in for the BSL in general.They were not concerned about the pit bulls, they seemed to only be concerened when their "breed" was included with the pit bulls, and losing their rights to breed.I have donated.And did not realize this would be the issue.I thought and hoped it was to fight for the dogs,not "breeders" rights.

babyrocky1
March 16th, 2006, 08:50 PM
It isnt about breeders rights, this is a constitutional challenge, if Ruby is to challenge this law under the charter he needs a client and an "action" If he allows his client to break the law, ex. not wear a muzzle then that dog is seized until a court date....so what else would he be able to use in court??? It seems to me that the right to breed, which is ofcourse unfortunate for any BYB or puppy miller, is never the less, legal for anyone other than a pit bull owner, this is a legal straategy and nothing more. I think its just the lesser of many evils and is no time for us to be divisive. I dont think we can generalize about who is fighting this law and for what reason. We all came to join in this fight from different backgrounds, political beliefs, some of the folks helping us dont even own dogs let alone "alleged pit bulls" Legal sstrategys and morality very seldom lign up the way we might want them too but Im not going to question Rubys strategys at this stage in the game He is most definately our best hope. This willnot undermine any future fight against puppy milling or BYBS.

wdawson
March 16th, 2006, 09:20 PM
i agree babyrocky


i also think that ruby knows what he is doing.......think of all the constitutional challenge cases he stands to get when he wins this one:fingerscr

and this is not his first superior court case.......hang in and let him work his magic.......after all he is the lawyer.

pittymomma
March 17th, 2006, 08:30 AM
It isnt about breeders rights, this is a constitutional challenge, if Ruby is to challenge this law under the charter he needs a client and an "action"

IMO, I think there were alot of other choices that would have set a better example of your " typical responsible owner" other than this client who wants to breed her mutt and this mutt is NOT a breed ambassador.

As a working professional and a multiple "pit bull " owner I take great offence that citizens viewing these confrences are seeing this woman as our example of a "pit bull owner who has lost their rights".

If this is a consititional challenge then there are surely other approachs one could take that dont involve breeders rights.

I think this approach is disheartening and just plain idiotic that some one in this day and age would even ponder the thought of breeding.

JMO
V

Dukieboy
March 17th, 2006, 10:39 AM
The CTV release said that she was fighting for the right to walk her dog without a muzzle.


http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20060314/bail_pitbull_060314/20060314?hub=TorontoHome


A lot of these media outlets get thier facts mixed up. That "24" newspaper you know, the free one, states that Ruby is defending the woman who's pitbull killed a small dog, and has been charged by police under the criminal code (not DOLA) which ofcourse he is not.

Luvmypit
March 17th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Ahh see you all got your panties in a tizzy for nothing!

Even if it was about challenging the law for a breeder I would still support the overall point of this challenge. To say forget it I don't agree with the breeding part certianly does not help any pit bull at all. Sometimes its chosing the lesser of evils and I would sacrafice my beliefs if I knew it would liberate thousands of dogs. You can always fight to stop BYB's and PM's other ways. Anyhow it wouldn't have stoped BYB's if you didn't support this challenge so not sure what the point of not supporting it would have been. Not liek there is an overall law that prevents all dogs from breeding. Regardless you realize that if we win, it would not start or stop BYB's. IMO

babyrocky1
March 17th, 2006, 09:36 PM
He must have chosen this aspect of the law for a reason. If its not about the possible ramifications of having to break the law to challlenge it and I do believe it could be, then possibly its about what part of the law, when challenged, makes the whole thing fall apart. If this woman wins the right to breed her bullie, then Pit Bulls automatically are once again legal in Ontario. The rest of the law pretty much would have to fall. If its just the muzzling for exapmple, or the search and seizure, maybe it wouldnt have the same effect. None of us are lawyers,(I assume), we hired the best because he is the best at what he does, so lets have some faith, that and each other are all our bullies have at the moment. We have to stand strong and together. As Luvmypit has said, this law will do nothing for or against back yard breeders. Remember we tried to have restricitions on breeding of all dogs, we tried to have mandatory spaying and nuetering for pet quality dogs, we presented those options and many more at committee. Now we have to fight the fight that is in front of us and the byb and puppy mill fight can be done seperately.

Luvmypit
March 20th, 2006, 03:27 PM
I agree 100% Babyrocky!

phoenix
March 20th, 2006, 03:43 PM
IMO, I think there were alot of other choices that would have set a better example of your " typical responsible owner" other than this client who wants to breed her mutt and this mutt is NOT a breed ambassador.

V

I agree.
I am not a pit bull owner, and I read these threads to help me get a better understanding of both sides of this debate. I feel for many of these dogs (having met some nice ones), and I also worry about the many irresponsible owners out there who feel justified through this fight. Unfortunately, as someone who is not involved, this particular 'client' doesn't make a good impression to me.
I am not a believer in the adage "the end justifies the means". I think you have to take each step carefully so that nothing bites you in the butt (literally I guess!) Ruby is high profile, which is great. BUT- wouldn't a person with a pure AmStaff (champion/tested etc) who was a breeder make a more believable case... someone whose way of life has been changed? Or a person with a pit who wants to exercise in dog parks off leash, or work (like Neville) in police/drug/bomb capacities????
IMO, this will turn away some who might otherwise have been strong supporters.

edit- i wrote this before i read that the facts behind this woman's case may be wrongly reported...)

Watchdog
March 21st, 2006, 04:18 AM
I would like to see stronger reasons to oppose this ban than that! What about the fact that never being able to let a dog run free off its leash is robbing it from ever getting full exersize? What about all the pitbulls that got dropped off on a country road somewhere because the owners didnt want to worry about huge fines and jail terms under this ban but also didnt want to take the dog to the pound because it would be killed.Now these dogs are breeding with wolves, coyotes and each other and producing packs of wild dogs.You call this public safety?Perhaps the whole thing is just another liberal scam and an excuse to pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayers while good dogs pay for it with their lives.

twodogsandacat
March 21st, 2006, 08:03 AM
What about all the pitbulls that got dropped off on a country road somewhere because the owners didnt want to worry about huge fines and jail terms under this ban but also didnt want to take the dog to the pound because it would be killed.

You need not worry about that as Mr. Bryant also made it illegal to abandon a pit bull other than to a shelter or research facility. If you want to abandon any other type of dog....go ahead that's not illegal. It's also illegal to train a pit bull how to fight...so it's not illegal to train another breed?

Seriously though there are many reasons to reject this law however it appears from a CTV story that this is the original case promised and the issue is an owner that doesn't want to muzzle a dog whom has shown no reason that she would require a muzzle other than the law.

Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby announced Tuesday that he will challenge the controversial law. He is representing another woman who is fighting to be able to walk her pit bull without having to muzzle it.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20060314/bail_pitbull_060314/20060314?hub=TorontoHome

Watchdog
March 21st, 2006, 10:29 AM
He can pass all the laws he wants to but unless they are fair they wont be followed or respected and end up creating more problems.The stray dog problem is Bryants doing from creating this unjust senseless ban.He is not qualified to make any further laws as he has made a huge mess already and doesnt know anything about the dogs he is making laws over and doesnt care to learn about them.London alone will find out why they are 350 pitbull licence tag renewals short this year compared to last year when all the strays out there start reproducing in large numbers.

tybrax
April 12th, 2006, 02:19 AM
I wish Clayton the best of luck and pray for a wonderful out come.


From all us Aussie.

tybrax

LM1313
April 12th, 2006, 10:36 AM
I hope the news articles are wrong about the woman wanting to breed her mixed breed dog. That seems like a very sketchy angle to approach the case at. "My dog isn't dangerous, so I should be able to breed her!" Um, er, what? Doesn't "My dog isn't dangerous so I should be able to walk her without a muzzle!" make more sense?

Also, if her dog is unspayed, that means she hasn't been complying with the law. Yes, the law is stupid. But I think it would make a much better impression on the public to represent someone who WAS complying with the law--for example, someone who has been muzzling their family pet for walks but doesn't want to because the dog is perfectly well-mannered.

Wasn't a recent dog show champion a bull terrier? If they could somehow use him in the case, it would be great!

Well, here's hoping the ban falls through, anyway.

~LM~

gdamadg
April 12th, 2006, 06:00 PM
I hope the news articles are wrong about the woman wanting to breed her mixed breed dog.

Now with what I am about to say, I don't want any one to think I condone or support back yard breeders at all.

Just because she says this does not necessarily mean she will. It is a fundamental right that has been taken away. And even if she was to breed her dog, perhaps it is because some friends or family members would like a similar dog with a similar temperment. It may not be for profit. Is it really human nature to look for the worst in people? As for if her dog is not spayed, there is probably a court injunction in place until the outcome of the case. Her dog is a key piece of evidence in this court case and can not be altered. Now I am not a lawyer, but sometimes if you just use common sense and logic, instead of running away with your feelings right away, a simple answer comes to mind.

Added - As for being mixed breed, it is a perfect example for this court case. This is the most vague part of the law, the breed. If a dog was used that was pure with papers and the owner was a reputable breeder, yes there would be no disputing it, but that's not the problem with the law. It is that there are soo many dogs out there that "may" be crossed with a bully breed and falls under this law. I have one, he is Boxer/Staff X, and most people see the Boxer before anything else. However he is part Staffy and falls under this law.

LM1313
April 12th, 2006, 09:10 PM
Yes, it could just be an aspect of the case. She might not actually want to breed the dog and just be focusing on this for the case.

On the other hand, the news account makes it sound as if she definitely does want to breed her dog:

Ruby is going to court on behalf of Catherine Cochrane, a 23-year-old anthropology student from Toronto who wants to breed her two-year-old Staffordshire mix, Chess.


Is the news article correct? Well, we don't know for sure. But while we don't know that it's accurate, we don't know that it's inaccurate, either.

And why would a responsible owner have an unspayed mixed breed to begin with? Two years old . . . The ban is less than two years old, correct? So she couldn't have left the dog unspayed because of the ban.

I'm of the opinion that the lawyer could have found a better pet owner to rally around, unless the strongest aspect of the case against the BSL law is the breeding angle. But I can't see how it would be.

~LM~

Watchdog
April 13th, 2006, 12:12 PM
There was a good oportunity to gain public support if the other more important reasons for opposing the ban were focused on instead of a woman wanting to breed a dog that is a cross-breed. We will need the support as we will probably win the appeal but then the appeal will be appealled.

Schwinn
April 17th, 2006, 11:57 PM
I guess the question is, does the end justify the means? Also, arguing based on point of law, this is as good a point as any. If there are no laws restricting breeding of other mutts, then why should this woman be excluded from breeding hers? (Not arguing for backyard breeders by any means, just pointing out the rational for the arguement).

What do they say, nothing unites like a common enemy?

I'm sure if anyone wanted clarification, Ruby could be e-mailed directly, or the group who hired him.

As for it being appealled, I think that'd be a stupid move on the part of the Liberals, spending money on an appeal...yea, they'll probably do it.

Luvmypit
April 18th, 2006, 03:07 PM
See that is what I was trying to get across. There is no law at all in any books that restrict BYB's. So for her to fight for her right to have the same options as every other breed owner. Most if not all of us agree that BYB's are a thorn in the side of animal companionship BUT everyone can do it but me and my fellow pit bull owners. Its the rights we are fighting for to be just like a collie , shepphard, or lab owner. If you have the right why not I whether its right or not? I just don't want people to use this challenge as a reason to support or not support eradicating pit bulls because of the BYB part.
In the end if people do not support it the way it is pit bulls will still be euthanized and BYB's will still be running. So really the end does justify the means. There are ways to fight BYB's this certainly is not it. Not on my pit bulls head!
I do however wonder why she was the candidate picked to represent us all. Maybe she wants to to do it for money and the angle ruby is going to show is the effect the law has on ones livelyhood. Ya I know its a streach but we obviously can't be the only ones who questioned this. Wouldn't Banned Aid or Advocates have an answer for us. There must be a good legal reason.

babyrocky1
April 19th, 2006, 01:52 PM
I believe this law is being argued on many points, the one reported is just the one that has been reported is likely just the one they chose to highlight. It is only a short time til we get all our questions answered as Im sure the whole thing will be a matter of public record, each and every word, hopefully this is still a free country and we are entitled to all information regarding legal proceedings, so lets stay on side for now and have faith, the closing arguments are May sixteenth and seventeenth, i think. I can clarify that. It could take time for a decision to come down, and yes the Fibs probably will appeal if we win. Also I would imagine the press willl go on a" Pit Bull witch hunt" again if we win so we might need to put our heads together and figure out how to deal with that....hmmm it wont be truly over unless we can educate as well!

Luvmypit
April 19th, 2006, 02:05 PM
Now if we win and they appeal can we be muzzle free for that time until they hear it over a second time?

babyrocky1
April 19th, 2006, 10:45 PM
If I understand it corretly Luvmypit, if we win, and thats assuming the whole thing, including the muzzling is overturned, then yes we are free unless or until they win an appeal.

babyrocky1
April 19th, 2006, 10:49 PM
There will be a Q and A at the Bash (shameless plug) and you can ask those questions of the DLCC exec. Im just passing on stuff Ive heard. They can clarify things for you from their perspective as part of Banned Aid. Banned Aid as most of you know is the coalition of groups that have hired Clayton Ruby.

Schwinn
April 21st, 2006, 08:35 PM
Anytime a law is struck down, it becomes null and void. Only if an appeal is won by the government, would it be re-instated (unless a new law, of course, was passed).

Jamaken
May 15th, 2006, 07:16 PM
I haven't posted here for about 2 years since I adopted my dog from the SPCA here in Victoria.

I just saw a report on CBC about a Ms. Cochrane who is challenging the pit bull ban in Ontario. Frankly, I am appalled (?spelling?) that such a completely bogus ban on such a wonderful dog.

I hope that this challenge can reverse the ban as it is 100% the way the dog has been brought up as opposed to the dog itself being vicious and 'bad'.

I felt extremely disgusted when another dog owner in the CBC coverage said that when she sees a Pit Bull she says that she is consumed with fear. Why would someone so ignorant say something like that. It's on par with saying she's afraid of dragons or dandilions.

If anyone knows of some way that we could help this lady or if there are any online petitions opposing the ban, PM me so that I may take part. Every pit bull I have ever met is a loving, loyal pet; strong too.:ca: