CBC Radio report on PB enforcement shortfalls

jotted notes as fast as humanly possible, before having much coffee...CBC always springs these stories on me when I have just rolled out of the hay!

Peterborough reports that it is too costly to try to enforce the pb ban as no gov/t funding at all and this now falls on the backs of taxpayers.

According to Brad Algar(th?) of HS in Peterborough, so far, they have picked up 10 stray pbs since BSL was implemented, held them for 10 days as the law stipulates and then put them down. This costs $250 per animal and they, like any other HS in Ontario, have limited funds. Their contract for ACC is thru the Peterborough HS.

Since the new provincial regulations, the courts are backing up with the cases involving pbs, and the HS has to house and feed the dogs during that time.

In the spring, Toronto had complained that because citizens for the most part, are law abiding and enforcing the pb regulations should not be costly and fall on the backs of the public.

How shocking that this poorly thought out law is backfiring and they want us to pay for there stupidity. I am glad that Michael Bryants a$$inine law is going to cost the city and is backing up the courts. Because this is much more important to try a dog then a real criminal or people with real court cases. As long as there are more law abiding owners than not was this law really worth all the money MB wasted getting his ugly mug in the paper? I think not. But as long as it is being enforced and if anyone gets a fine make sure you say you want to go to court with it, because in my opinion this law is going to go away when AC and HS refuse to pay the costs to keep these dogs and insist the city fork over some money and we know politicians are not going to give them money it would take away from there pensions and free plane rides etc.

I live in Peterborough; I don't think I've ever seen a pitbull muzzled here. The law is not enforced, and no one follows it.

There's an editorial about this in The Examiner:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=201203&catname=Editorial&classif=Editorials

On the bright side, asking the taxpayers to pay for the consequences of this bill is about the quickest, most surefire way to turn them against it. They're going to start saying to themselves, "Wait a minute . . . I haven't been attacked by a pit bull since the ban went into place, why should I pay for this??" It's easier to accept things like pit bull bans when someone ELSE is paying for it.

Keep note of how many accused drunk drivers, wife beaters, drug dealers and gun users have their cases thrown out due to unnecessary wait times. Then check if any pit bull owners charged with not having a muzzled dog (not an incident just not being muzzled) are in the courts ahead of them. Play it back to the public in the fall of 2007.