August 31st, 2004, 09:34 PM
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO IS PETITIONING THE PROVINCE TO BAN "PIT BULLS" ACROSS ONTARIO!
Sandra Alway, the President of the Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Terrier Club did a show on CBC's Metro Morning today, and will be doing another interview tomorrow on CBC's Ontario Morning.
Listen in at www.toronto.cbc.ca/ontariomorning
It's time to speak out guys. Don't waste time.
August 31st, 2004, 11:31 PM
Disgusting, I'm right on it!
September 1st, 2004, 08:55 AM
I will be participating in an on-air interview this morning on 900 CHML with Roy Green regarding breed bans. As you all know from Homer's post - Ontario (yes, the entire province) is considering a breed (pit bull) ban "if the dogs can be proven to not be able to be socialized".
You can listen live at: http://www.900chml.com
Marty McCann of McCann's Professional Dog Trainers, Sandra Allway, President of the Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Club and Pam Jamieson from the Hamilton/Burlington SPCA will also be on the panel. I will be representing the Rottweiler Club of Canada, Breed Specific Legislation Committee as the Co-Chairperson. The discussion is from 10am to 11am this morning and will take callers as well.
Thank you all.
This was posted by my dear friend Trish Barrett on our rottweiler forum. I am sure that she will be great. I am equally sure that I will be sound asleep since I just got home from work.
September 1st, 2004, 10:08 AM
The audio wont play for me is anyone else trying to listen?
September 1st, 2004, 12:30 PM
Not playing here... hope it will be available on archive!
September 1st, 2004, 12:49 PM
Here's a link to yesterday's "Metro Morning" interview on CBC with the official in Winnepeg with the Animal Services Agency responsible for enforcing BSL banning Pit Bulls since the 1980's:
In this interview, the official stated that:
1) There have been much fewer "Pit Bull" related attacks since the ban was put in place.
2) He claims that Pit Bull attacks are different than other breeds in that they repeat attack... "keep biting, biting, biting", he says.
3) He concedes that the behaviour of any dog is a direct result of owner responsibility, but that educating dog owners is a lenghthy and difficult process.
4) The only statistics he provided regarding dog bites were the figures associated with Pit Bulls. He did not provide overall dog bite statistics nor did he provide evidence that dog bites increased or decreased, or what the severity of those attacks were.
5) He concedes that individuals who want to own "macho" or "aggressive" dogs have moved on to other breeds, most popularly the Rottweiler and Rott Crosses, and German Shepherds. While he agrees there are still dog attacks, he stated that the attacks are not the same as they were with Pit Bulls, "biting, biting, biting". He did not provide insight on how severe the attacks were, however.
6) He stated Winnepeg does not wish to persue further breed bans at this time.
7) Michael Bryant has not yet contacted him regarding BSL, however he will share his experiences when that call comes.
What I am NOT understanding here, is why people in power aren't reading between the lines? OF COURSE there will be fewer Pit Bull attacks if fewer of them exist! OF COURSE people will move on to different breeds. OF COURSE it has EVERYTHING to do with dog ownership when it comes to dog attacks.
That being said, WHY are officials even considering senseless murder, when the answer is right in front of them!!! Regulate Breeding! Regulate Adoption! Regulate Licensing!
So they know this is the wrong solution, but they're doing it anyway??? Pardon Me???
Is it really so hard to put laws in place that stop individuals from breeding dogs?
How about these ideas:
1) Shutting down all non-qualified dog breeding. There should be no private breeding or selling outside of regulated breeding centres.
2) Regulated breeding centres should be the only facilities permitted to sell dogs. These centres must microchip I.D. and neuter/spay all dogs and puppies intended for public adoption.
3) Anyone adopting a dog or puppy is required to submit a formal application, including history of all pet ownership. These applications must be rigorously reviewed and applications where the potential owner has a history of aggressive pets would automatically be declined.
4) All pets must be returned to a regulated facility if an owner can no longer keep the pet. In the case where a pet is to be transferred to a family member or friend, the transfer would have to take place including a formal review with an official at the breeding facility, and again an application submitted.
5) In cases where abuse is reported by an animal, the owner registered to the animal's microchip is held 100% responsible for their actions. The penalties should be severe, including heavy fines and possibly jail time. These offenses should be classified as Criminal charges.
September 1st, 2004, 01:10 PM
The problem is that people sit in there ivory towers and make these decision not knowing facts.
Have they ever seen a puppy mill or BYB, or a pit bull fight ring, or others who abuse these dogs and create aggressive dogs. NO
Lets get these lawmakers out there in the trenches with creulty investigators and police and see where the problem is.
Everybody needs email and stop thsi ludicrous ban it will not stop anything but responsible owners from having well adjusted and well trained dogs. Then they are going to have to endure the abuse from the ignorant public about there dogs.
September 1st, 2004, 01:19 PM
Ok, I agree with #5.
I don't think that all breeding should be done by, what would turn into, a state run puppy mill. Responsible code of ethic breeders, that belong to COE clubs are your best bet for well bred dogs, both temperment wise and health wise. These are people who take great pride in their dogs and have maybe a litter a year.
I would be unable to have a dog under the criteria of #3. I know several people who have adopted dogs with issues (ie: aggression) but they are responsible owners and make sure that these dogs are NEVER in a position where they can hurt anyone. A couple of years ago, I had a male rottweiler that had no clue as to how to behave in a house. He got his foot stuck in the sliding part of my van door, and in his pain, bit me rather badly. Since it required a visit to the ER and stitches, he would have been deemed dangerous if I had sent in the paperwork. (Must have slipped my mind.) He was put to sleep a couple of months later when he snapped at my son. He didn't make skin contact, but as a responsible owner, I could not rehome a dog that had tried to bite a child.
I think that stiffer penalties for non-licensing and letting your dogs run at large is a great start. Stiffer charges for bites or "attacks" is also a must. Owners of dogs, who have histories of aggression, need to be charged with murder if the dog kills someone. Plain and simple.
September 1st, 2004, 01:47 PM
Sandi, these are just ideas. I know they're going to be flawed in many ways, but it's better ground to start from than banning breeds.
The general idea is that all pets should be microchipped, with owners held ultimately responsible. This in itself is a massive change from what is current. In most cities, owners get off scot free for the aggression of their animals, with no charges laid, nor fines collected. In cases where the animal was obtained through BYBs and Mills, animals aren't microchipped.
The issue is, in order to regulate microchipping, you have to regulate breeding and adoption. I would have to agree that it would be wrong that the government be ultimately and solely responsible for breeding. This kind of thing should be done by breed experts. Most ethical breeders would pass an application process to become registered for adoption services. I could see the CKC being largely responsible in the selection process, cooperating with the CFHS. But the regulation itself should be implemented, maintained and monitored by the government when it involves identification (microchipping).
The only way to stop BYBs and Mills is preventing the availability of intact animals. BYBs and Mills sell animals intact, and on occassion animals from Humane Societies are adopted intact, with nothing but a mere voucher for redemption should the owner decide to neuter or spay the animal.
Item number 3 deals with the issue of owner responsibility. Lets say an owner has children, and one child develops allergies to the animal. This kind of thing happens often. If that owner was to give the animal to a cruel person, someone who would not pass an application process through formal methods, and that animal attacked someone, the original owner would be liable on file for the animal's actions. This item deals with protecting registered owners just as much as it protects the public.
All currently owned animals should be grandfathered in Ontario, but every owner is responsible for having their dog microchipped within a certain period, let's say one year. As evidence of the microchip, a destinct metal tag should be worn on the dog at all times, perhaps an identifyable color and shape different from the ordinary round licences. This way if the animal is without one, the animal can be reported and thusly investigated.
This is just my line of logic at work here.
September 1st, 2004, 03:01 PM
I agree with you totally.
I would also not be allowed to own a pet under #3. I had a dog, who was always friendly to that point, go through the window after a little girl that rang the door bell - he bit her twice, totally unprovoked... as much as I loved him, he was PTS after the quarantine, because I didn't know what set him off, it was uncharacteristic and I just could trust him from that point on, especially living is an area with a lot of children - he was never loose, but god forbid he were to escape again. I couldn't take that chance and I wouldn't re-home a dog with aggression - lord knows what would have happened to him or his new owners.
And while the micro chipping is a good idea, it will cost money for the government to set up and police. It's not likely to happen. And to regulate breeding is even more money and less likely to happen.
I personally think they need to increase fines for offenders - we already prosecute them - just send them out with more than a slap on the wrist. And I think we need more strict rules for dogs who do bite... I was surprised to find out that my dog would only be required to wear a muzzle after his attack... Who's going to police that? I personally think that any dog who bites or attacks a person "unprovoked" (so not dog dogs protecting their owner - or being teased) should be required to be PTS - no matter what the breed. Sure some of them can be rehabilitated, but there are too many good, non aggressive dogs out there to spend that much time and energy of dogs who attack - they do it once, why give them a change to kill someone the next time. JMO - I realize that it's not likely a popular one.
oh edited to add - the owners should be charged if it was deemed to be cased by them, abuse or such, and they should never be allowed to own an animal again.