Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Help save Heira

Saradog
March 7th, 2008, 08:07 PM
Read her story, and sign the petition...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/34/please-help-us-save-our-dog

babyrocky1
March 7th, 2008, 08:13 PM
This is freaking ridiculous!:yell::yell::yell:

Frenchy
March 7th, 2008, 08:15 PM
Done. :sad:

Gibbons
March 7th, 2008, 08:41 PM
I hate how I live in a world that allows this kind of thing...

Frenchy
March 7th, 2008, 09:06 PM
Stupid question :o but I thought the ban didn't relate to dogs adopted before this stupid law was made :confused: I thought the owners could keep their dogs but had to muzzle them when out ? And these people had this dog for 6 years now .....

Tommysmom
March 7th, 2008, 09:15 PM
Stupid question :o but I thought the ban didn't relate to dogs adopted before this stupid law was made :confused: I thought the owners could keep their dogs but had to muzzle them when out ? And these people had this dog for 6 years now .....

The news report I saw on this said it was because they hadn't licensed the dog last year... I don't know if they had it licensed before that or not. The way they keep track of who's had the dogs prior to the ban coming in is by the licensing, so by missing a year it triggered the problem I guess - if you register every year it's just a renewal, but if you miss then it becomes a 'new' license.

babyrocky1
March 7th, 2008, 09:21 PM
Stupid question :o but I thought the ban didn't relate to dogs adopted before this stupid law was made :confused: I thought the owners could keep their dogs but had to muzzle them when out ? And these people had this dog for 6 years now .....
Not a stupid question, the ban , or bill 132, leaves existing city bi-laws in effect or cities can make new bi-laws as long as they are MORE restrictive than the ban would be... in this city one must keep the registration stuff up to date or this can happen... it is unbelievable... talk about the punishment not fitting the crime!.... I believe Kitchener has the same kind of policy... so if you miss the deadline.. they can execute your dog.::wall:

Frenchy
March 7th, 2008, 09:32 PM
omg that is extremely stupid :confused: they must have proof of adoption or prior registration !!! How many people just don't get any freakin license for their dogs ... and nothing happens to them :wall: so just because they did the right thing , they get this sh:censored: ? :wall:

babyrocky1
March 7th, 2008, 09:38 PM
omg that is extremely stupid :confused: they must have proof of adoption or prior registration !!! How many people just don't get any freakin license for their dogs ... and nothing happens to them :wall: so just because they did the right thing , they get this sh:censored: ? :wall:I believe the dog was registered every year and for some reason, either they didn't realise it, OR there was a clerical error on the part of the city.... this happened!
I thought that I had read that the mom thought she HAD renewed.. so yes the city knows for sure that they had the dog all these years, it as legally registered for six years and then somehow the renewal didn't happens so have declared her illegal..
This is not province wide, its an extra torture that this particular city council has dreamed up!

Frenchy
March 7th, 2008, 09:45 PM
This is so unfair ! it's down right extremist :mad:

Brooster
March 7th, 2008, 10:36 PM
Can't get the link to work, Im e-mailing the mayor
mhancock@brantford.ca
There, done, lets all send him a note

Saradog
March 8th, 2008, 10:39 AM
There's some confusion about one year's license, the owner thinks she bought the license and is hunting for the paperwork, but apparently the owner had licensed every year since she had the dog.

Since the dog is still at home, we don't want to p*ss off city hall and make them grab the dog, we're waiting to see what's happening.

Saradog
March 10th, 2008, 08:01 PM
Got this info off Heira's Facebook page.

Please help Heira by signing her Facebook page and petition, and by sending the following letter without edits and with your signature, full name and address to the Whittinghams:

Scott Whittingham
c/o Joyce Braun
RPO North Park Plaza
P.O. Box 28096
Brantford, ON N3R 7X5

so they can accumulate them for their court date on April 8th.

Heira's Facebook page....

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10627326498

Heira's petition....

http://apps.facebook.com/petitions/view?pid=644062339

Text of letter...

To Whom It May Concern,

I, _________________, strongly believe that the Grandfather Clause should be re-instated for Heira, dog of Scott and Beth Whittingham, and she should be allowed to stay in Brantford, Ontario.

Yours truly,

mastifflover
March 11th, 2008, 05:48 AM
How awful for the family. Once again our government is disgusting me with there lack of compassion. Maybe they should stop wasting our money and money they do not have and concentrate on something that is damaging our city more than a dog like young offenders and illegal criminal aliens that should be deported.

seeker
March 12th, 2008, 06:38 AM
xxxxxxxxxxx

seeker
March 12th, 2008, 06:47 AM
What will it take these decision makers that hide behind arbitrary laws so they do not have to make actual decisions that they can be judged upon, to acknowledge that pitbulls are not the biggest problem our society faces in the 21st century.

LL1
March 22nd, 2008, 02:18 PM
That is sad,from the link it looks like they did not get a 2007 license?

Saradog
March 24th, 2008, 06:52 PM
Heira's owner is on CHCH television at 11:30 p.m. on Monday, March 24th....channel 11 with bunny ears, Rogers Cable 10 I think.

Colubridz
April 3rd, 2008, 08:28 PM
Small update the local paper published the following article:

http://theexpositor.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=955939&auth=Michael-Allan%20Marion

Family 'fights' to save pet; Walnut St. residents risk losing pit bull over licensing

Beth and Scott Whittingham are mounting a public campaign to try to save Heira, their beloved Staffordshire terrier pit bull, from death row

Their pet's plight, the Whittinghams admit with equal measures of embarrassment and regret, is the result of forgetting last year to renew Heira's licence.

The Walnut Street residents have licensed their pit bull for years. They duly registered her and fastened a tag on her collar in 2006 under the city's new bylaw strictly regulating the ownership of pit bulls and banning their breeding. They also had a microchip put in her ear.

Forgetting to renew in 2007, however, caused Heira to lose her "grandfather" rights which allowed her to live with the family because she was registered before the bylaw went into effect. Because of that oversight, the Whittinghams were refused a licence renewal for 2008.

Instead, they got three options: take the seven-year-old dog outside the city limits, have her put down, or turn her over to the Brant County SPCA for certain euthanasia.

"It's so unfair to have her killed," Beth Whittingham, 24, said Monday.

"She's never bit anybody and she's such a loving dog. I know she would die to save any member of this family, and we will not lose her without a fight."

In a bid to rouse public support for Heira, the owners have mounted an online petition and created a page in Facebook, a popular Internet social networking website.

Photos show Heira playing around the Whittingham's children, two-year-old son Quenton and four-month-old daughter Caryssa, and helping family members unwrap Christmas presents.

The owners have also been on the line to several city councillors pleading for their intervention.

Ward 4 Coun. Richard Carpenter said the Whittinghams should bring their concerns to council.

"Staff can't give them a licence because they're outside the bylaw," he said. "The bylaw is there to protect citizens. Council needs to hear the whole story to see if anything can be done for these people. We need to get to the bottom of this."

As an original champion of the drive to ban pit bulls in Brantford, Carpenter said the city was right to pass a bylaw that is more restrictive than subsequent legislation banning the breeding of pit bulls.

He said the number of pit bull attacks has fallen since the bylaw went into effect.

Ward 1 Coun. Mark Littell said he is looking into the matter.

He said he was told by the city clerk's office that the Whittinghams would have to get a ruling from the justice of the peace. But when the couple went to see the justice of the peace, they were told that wasn't so.

Littell said he will continue to work on the case.

"I'm completely sympathetic with their situation but this is a very restrictive bylaw that we have to work with."

Court appearance

Meanwhile, the Whittinghams have been ordered to appear in court on April 8 to answer a charge of keeping, harbouring or possessing a prohibited animal.

"We're looking for whatever help we can get before it's too late," said Beth Whittingham.

She dreaded the thought of having to tell Quenton that his best friend might have to be put down.

"I just don't know how I could explain this to him," she said.

"Quenton and Heira play all the time. They chase each other around the house and she kisses him. He has no idea what's been going on and what could come."

Heira was rescued from an abusive owner. "It has taken us years to get her health back up but there is some unfortunate internal damage," said Beth Whittingam.

"Heira has a sad story to tell, and we, her loving family, do not want a sad ending."

Elizabeth Ann
April 4th, 2008, 07:38 AM
"There I am told that we did not get her a 2007 dog license, thus we have three options.

1) Find her a home out of Brantford, ON Canada
2) Kill her
3) Let the SPCA take her"


But couldn't the family talk to the SPCA ask them if on paper they could release the dog to the SPCA and then adopt her back.

This is strickly just paperwork and I am sure the family wouldn't mind paying the adoption fee if it was required.

I understand it's some times about principles and the fact that the law just isn't fair but if the above suggestion worked then the family could get back to just loving and taking care of their family member (and also remembering to keep their receipt when purchasing their dog licence).

Elizabeth Ann
April 4th, 2008, 08:12 AM
Stupid question :o but I thought the ban didn't relate to dogs adopted before this stupid law was made :confused: I thought the owners could keep their dogs but had to muzzle them when out ? And these people had this dog for 6 years now .....

Not a stupid question, the ban , or bill 132, leaves existing city bi-laws in effect or cities can make new bi-laws as long as they are MORE restrictive than the ban would be... in this city one must keep the registration stuff up to date or this can happen... it is unbelievable... talk about the punishment not fitting the crime!.... I believe Kitchener has the same kind of policy... so if you miss the deadline.. they can execute your dog.::wall:

According to:
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp#TOC_04

"There is no provincial plan for dog registration as animal control is a municipal responsibility. You should license and register your dog in compliance with requirements set by your local municipality."

SARAH
April 4th, 2008, 08:57 AM
I signed it too! There should be a law against stupid people!!!