- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


More Breeds Added for Ont BSL!!!

October 21st, 2004, 11:53 PM
According to RCC BSL board, in a closed door meeting today, Bryant has decided to add All Breeds ever involved in fatality! (Canada or Ont??)

This legislation will be rammed thru with all Liberals Ordered to vote Yes!

October 22nd, 2004, 01:09 AM
I am beyond angry right now. Before the breed ban comes into effect, this man (if you can call him one) needs to be forced into resignation, PRONTO. I'm certain there's many, many people than can do his job better.

This is why it is so important for all dog owners to fight against BSL -- regardless of the breed. Far too many people think it won't affect their dog, until it is too late. Banning ANY breed is stupid; whoever the bright spark who thought that banning a breed was a good thing needs a good kick in the teeth.

October 22nd, 2004, 04:46 AM
This is very sad indeed :(

October 22nd, 2004, 07:03 AM
all dogs involved in a fatality?

wasn't the last fatality in canada involve a golden retriever?

and i don't think in canada there has ever been a human fatality caused by a pit?

we are talking about human fatalities right?

October 22nd, 2004, 07:55 AM
I worked the afternoon shift yesterday, so needless to say my mail box is full!

I am not Canadian, but I can tell you that I feel so angry and defeated right now. I can not imagine what dog owners in Canada are feeling.

I have a list of Canadian dog fatalities from 1979-1998. I will post it in the thread that asked for them. I don't know exactly how accurate they are. I am having a very hard time finding them online (but I was looking while trying to get my son off to school, so that could have been part of the problem.). The only good news (if you can call it that) is that there have been 5 fatalities by Labrador Retrievers. I doubt that Lab owners will sit still for this and they are the #1 registered breed of dog, if I am not mistaken. At least here in the U.S.

I am a bit concerned that Bryant keeps announcing these little tidbits in closed door sessions. I have to wonder what his motivation is. Since bites cost insurance companies money, is he getting some kind of kick-backs from them? This is a thought, seeing as how every dog that is affected by the ban is required to be insured.

I have a lot of friends on this forum and I had thought to go to Canada on a vacation and maybe meet some of you. I am sorry to say that I will not give one penny to a government that supports this type of madness and I will do my level best to make sure that everyone I know avoids Canada as a vacation spot.

I do live just on the other side of the Bridge from you guys though. If you ever have to come to the U.S. (Detroit area), give me a holler. I would love to sit down and chat!

October 22nd, 2004, 10:04 AM
Please, what is RCC? Is there an article I can see that states this, or a website? I would like a copy for my files and to help spread the word. Thanks!

October 22nd, 2004, 10:11 AM
Important new information: apparently in closed-door meetings Byrant said
that he want to add all dogs that have been involved in fatalities to his
list of banned breeds. The puts a lot of dogs on the chopping block, esp.
Rotties & GSDs. We need to get this message out.
On a positive note, Agriculture Canada is apparently getting involved
behind the scene and is pushing back since they, not the province, have
jurisdiction over purebred dogs in Canada.

October 22nd, 2004, 10:16 AM
Who is RCC and how would they know what happened at a "closed door meeting"?

October 22nd, 2004, 10:24 AM
Was there some speach or article printed that Mr. B said that no other breeds other than pit bulls would fall under this ban? Is he now taking back his "word", (which is worthless anyway!)? maybe I am just imagining this, but I thought he said that no other breeds would be affected by this intended ban. This just can't happen!

October 22nd, 2004, 10:26 AM
His announcement said "menacing" dogs of all breeds would also be covered. And that they do not have to bite to be declared menacing, and measures taken can include putting the dog to sleep.

October 22nd, 2004, 10:27 AM
I can't find any information about this meeting behind closed doors.

IF this IS true, this just shows us what this man is capable of and he NEEDS to be stopped!!!

October 22nd, 2004, 10:29 AM
I have heard the that the ministers are getting a little ticked with all the back peddling that he is doing and a lot are dog owners and are not pleased

October 22nd, 2004, 10:34 AM
I got this from the president of the Canadian Mossler Association on their web site, They are also very concerned about this ban. They have also started a letter writing campaign and are urging all there members. I posted the demonstration info on the site

October 22nd, 2004, 10:36 AM
Most of the meetings are behind closed doors, not sure what they meant by that and I do question if it is true.

October 22nd, 2004, 10:36 AM
As per what LL1 has said, I do recall that all dogs can be considered menacing and can indeed be pts if necessitated by law, BUT, I did not think that Mr. B's intention was to BAN any other breeds!! He did not say that. He said that they could fall under the same penalties, i.e. muzzling, but not actual BANNING!! This man is really pizzing me off!! He is overstepping things by large leaps. He looks more and more like the :evil: and it's not even Hallowe'en yet!!

October 22nd, 2004, 10:38 AM
He did say thatno other dog will be added to the ban but that all dogs could be considered dangerous if someone thinks they are

October 22nd, 2004, 10:39 AM
Sorry, I must have misread your original post - so 2 people can somewhat confirm this inforfmation!!! This is ludicris!! I think I actually hate this man!

I got this from the president of the Canadian Mossler Association on their web site, They are also very concerned about this ban. They have also started a letter writing campaign and are urging all there members. I posted the demonstration info on the site

ADDED: If you go see the "dog attacks" ( thread, there's some stats that LavR posted and information from the Canadian Safety Council that I posted...

October 22nd, 2004, 10:44 AM
Who is RCC and how would they know what happened at a "closed door meeting"?

RCC stands for "Rottweiler Club of Canada" :)

October 22nd, 2004, 10:45 AM
Thank you Luvmypit. I KNEW that he had said it somewhere. So, there you have it: He initially says no other breeds will be added to the ban, and then he has a closed door session with the intention of now adding other breeds to the ban. A perfect example of our honest politicians at work: LYING AS USUAL! How pathetic, but not unexpected and that makes me very :( :( :(

October 22nd, 2004, 11:10 AM
Sorry, but I'm a little confused here. Did he say other breeds will be added to the ban? Or did he say that a dog (meaning an individual) that is menacing can receive the same penalties? Just want to be clear on this detail. Thanks.

October 22nd, 2004, 11:15 AM
If I am not mistaken, he said that any breed that has caused a fatality will be banned.

October 22nd, 2004, 11:16 AM
Well yes any dog that is considered menancing you can call animal control or police and they will look into it but what Bryant said in the beginning that pit bulls will be the only dog added to the banned list

October 22nd, 2004, 11:18 AM
In his original announcement he said a dog of any breed can be deemed menacing and that they don't have to bite to be menacing, and he will have measures in place to deal with them, one of the measures woudl be euthanasia.

The other item about any breeds causing fatalities is an unconfirmed rumor at this point.

Sorry, but I'm a little confused here. Did he say other breeds will be added to the ban? Or did he say that a dog (meaning an individual) that is menacing can receive the same penalties? Just want to be clear on this detail. Thanks.

October 22nd, 2004, 11:32 AM
When I saw MBryant on the news being "accosted" by reporters, he said (not a direct quote...sorry) Pitbulls will def. be banned, but we are looking into the possibility that there are other breeds are minimally less dangerous then the Pitbull..... Take this anyway you want... but it certainly (to me) sounded like he was at least thinking about adding breeds to his "banned" list....
What I want to know is will the K9 Police/military/customs dogs be exempt from this ban? If not it might be a good idea to see them get involved anti-ban, as the majority of those dogs are GSD's, Pitbulls, Am Staffs etc... (in other words "dangerous dogs, that can be friendly one minute and snap the next.... Just so you know i am being sarcastic :p )

October 22nd, 2004, 11:56 AM
This guy is a big liar not surprising he keeps changing what he says. Personally I have decided that if he extends the ban to Mastiffs I will not abide by any of them. I am sick to death of this idiot thinking that he can tell us what breed of dog we may own and when we should muzzle it. I will go to court and fight any kind of ticket they want to write and if need be I will move. He is making totally uniformed decisions and not listening to anybody who knows what they are talking about. But for those of you who are considering getting rid of your dogs because of this guy don't I honestly dont think that if it does pass they will ever be able to enforce it. By way of manpower or funding.

October 22nd, 2004, 01:17 PM
The RCC BSL board has it's head on straight, & I have no reason to doubt that post.

i'm waiting for more information about this. I spent 1/2 the night up looking for breed based stats on Ont. or Cdn fatalities & ..I couldn't find any! A friend who has been looking at BSL for several years now, says there Aren't any!
(fatality stats were never meant to reflect that kind of info.) So if M.B. says got'em, should we assume its more B.S.? :confused:

IMHO, he's gonna go with media stories, & they get the breeds wrong much of the time anyway. (because they don't consider it important either?)
It's a sad day when gov. policy is made on only news stories, & nothing else.

October 22nd, 2004, 08:16 PM
This legislation will be rammed thru with all Liberals Ordered to vote Yes![/QUOTE]

If this is the case someone high up must owe Bryant something big or a deal has been struck that Bryant was opposed to .
I highly doubt it is because Micheal feels he is doing the "right" thing . Unless "something" is "right" for him it is unlikely that he would be on such a mission..

October 23rd, 2004, 07:10 AM
Huh. We could be in trouble. Exactly what does Mr. Bryant mean by "appears menacing"? When Bear sees something he doesn't like, he "appears menacing" as he gets his hackles up and growls.....when Bear barks, he "sounds menacing", Bear is 164 lbs. He looks menacing at the best of times, but is a great big suck. Is he going to be banned?

October 23rd, 2004, 07:55 AM
I havn't said much on this subject as I am not that informed.
I will say... that this whole thing is just a bunch of political crap in my eyes.
And very sad.....I can't believe what these politicians are doing :confused: They all seem to be jumping on a banwagon of one sort or another.

Banning breeds, I think, has already gotten out of control :mad: I've seen small dogs like a chihuahua look menacing before to the point I will not pet them.....Yes Crazy I know but are they going to ban them? I highly doubt it ! and probably , simply because of it's small size. There are alot of small dogs that can LOOK menacing.

I don't even know where to begin, this whole ban thing has me perplexed :confused:

I have met many of these supossed menacing breeds, a Sharpei for one can be a very menacing dog, but also a very friendly and loving one same can be said for Boxers, great dane, sheperd, rotties pits etc etc etc Surely they can come up with something better than a ban. I think the ban is an easy quick fix.
The politicians are looking for the easy way also seems to me that making laws to protect the animals is something politicians are far to scared to do. Why is that? They don't make tougher laws on abusers, and they won't make tougher laws on irresponsible owners it is the owners that are at fault not the damn dogs, when will they learn that?....The people that go for pits as a macho image will just move to another breed to intimidate people. I can see that !! Why can't they?? :mad:

October 23rd, 2004, 03:01 PM
Another thing that's got me concerned is the Lieberals "ban on junk food". My son is diabetic. By the time he gets to be school age, he will need a supply of sugar nearby if his insulin levels are in jeopardy. How are the schools going to ensure my son gets sugar if he needs it, and it's banned in schools?

This government is ticking me off-they're telling us what breed of dog we can and cannot own, what our children can eat, what's next, the makes of car we can drive, what clothes we can wear????? And after that, jackboots for the liberals so they can check to make sure we're all following their rules????

I knew there was a reason I didn't vote for these clowns.

October 23rd, 2004, 05:31 PM
Honest question here, Bearsmom, (not trying to be rude here) couldn't fruit or fruit juice help when sugar is needed?

October 25th, 2004, 07:42 PM
It can and does help, but if his levels are too low and he does fall unconscious, it's easier to put "pure sugar based foods" in his mouth so that they dissolve and he gets the sugar needed much quicker.