Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Debunking Michael Bryant

mastifflover
October 25th, 2004, 11:15 AM
I just recieved this from a friend at the CMA and asked if we could keep crossposting this message to other boards and anywhere else to get the word out.


Subject: [CanadianShowDogs] Debunking Michael Bryant

> CROSS POST

Just in case you haven't seen this

Send this to Everyone possible! This needs to get out there to everyone,

ESPECIALLY the people of Ontario!

Debunking Michael Bryant

The people of Ontario owe it to themselves to question the truth in what Michael Bryant is saying. The information he presented at his press conference was primarily inaccurate, erroneous and grossly distorted. It appears that Mr. Bryant is sensationalizing one issue to make the people of Ontario forget the Liberal's broken election promises.

The claim: "I am convinced that pit bulls are ticking time bombs. I am convinced that they are inherently dangerous animals." - Michael Bryant

Response: The United States the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed. All of the experts support this view - experts that Michael Bryant refused to include in his round table discussions. Why is Michael Bryant manipulating the truth to make one group of dogs look like monsters?

The claim: "... a neighboring pit bull knock[ed] her fence over and a 150 pound beast charged her kids." - Michael Bryant

Response: 'Pit bulls' do not exceed 100 pounds - most are in the 40-80 pounds range. In other words, Michael Bryant did not even use real 'pit bull' examples for his news conference. This proves the fears of pet owners are valid - any shorthaired, medium-to-large sized cross bred dog cannot be distinguished from 'pit bull' crosses and will be affected by this ban. This would include most boxer crosses, many Labrador crosses, rhodesian ridgeback crosses, mastiff crosses ... many, many dogs.

The claim: "... experts in Canada or the studies and statistics in the United States which found that pit bulls, in study after study, make up about 1 to 3 percent of the dog population in any given area and pit bulls cause somewhere between 48 and 56 percent of the serious dog incidents ..." - Michael Bryant



The response: These numbers apparently come from one obscure study - again showing the extreme bias that Michael Bryant has brought to this issue.

There is no scientific evidence that a single breed, over a period of time, has been the responsible for the most number of bites. Science experts point out that the breeds involved in serious bite attacks change over time, following changes in ownership patterns.

For example, between May 1975 and April 1980 the German Shepherd was responsible for close to double the number of fatalities (16) of the second ranked breed, husky-type dogs (9) - and in this period there were no 'pit bull' related fatalities. In recent years Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks.

The claim: "... I have not been presented with any compelling evidence to suggest that there is another breed like this. It is a breed apart. This is far more "bull" than "pet" and yes, there are big dogs out there, but they just don't cause the damage proportionately to their number, that pit bulls do." - Michael Bryant

Response: Again Michael Bryant shows either his ignorance, or his willing to manipulate the facts to further his agenda. Why do I say this? Because the very studies that Michael Bryant cites to support his ban clearly indicate that other large breeds have been involved in serious and fatal dog attacks recently. In fact, in Winnipeg bites by two of these breeds jumped significantly in the year that immediately followed the ban. Other breeds have emerged in recent years as a much more serious danger to public safety than the 'pit bull' because ownership trends are changing.

The claim: "We also know that when you institute a pit bull ban, it does not take long to have no more pit bull problems in your jurisdiction. That was the experience in Winnipeg ..." - Michael Bryant

The response: Mr. Bryant is knowingly deceiving the people of Ontario with this statement through exclusion. Yes, by reducing the number of 'pit bulls'in Winnipeg the government significantly cut the number of 'pit bull' incidents. However, a critical point is excluded. In the four years that immediately followed the 'pit bull' ban the overall number of bites in the city of Winnipeg went up.

The real numbers are this: in Winnipeg the overall number of bites in 1990 (the year when the ban was introduced) was 214 compared to 275, 264, 256, and 301 for the years of 1991-1994. More importantly, Winnipeg's statistics show a sharp increase in bites by two specific breeds that began in 1991 - immediately after the ban was implemented.

The claim: "The bull terrier is not captured. It is not a pit bull. Boxers are ugly dogs too [laughter]. I boxed for years, so I can say that and I'm showing it right now. So no, Don Cherry's dog is safe [laughter].Which means I am too [laughter]." - Michael Bryant

Response: Again, the Attorney General demostrates his ignorance. Don

Cherry's new dog is no longer a Bull Terrier - it is an American Staffordshire Terrier, one of the proposed breeds that will be banned if Bryant's law is passed. And Don Cherry's daughter owns Staffordshire Bull Terriers, yet another breed on Michael Bryant's hit list.

The claim: In England regarding identification problems under their Dangerous Dogs Act "... it wasn't the pit bull identification problem, it was these other breeds ...". - Michael Bryant

Response: Wrong again, Mr. Bryant. I would like to see you tell that to Henry Bates, the owner of Otis, a great dane cross that was seized and then held for 3 years at a cost to the owner of over 8 pounds a day for care on the basis that Otis was a 'pit bull'. A full transcript where British parliamentarians discuss the Otis case, and in fact serious problems with their dangerous dogs act, can be found online here.

> What is Michael Bryant's agenda? This is a man who is willing to distort, manipulate and ultimately EXTERMINATE 3 unique dog breeds for his own political gain. This is not a politician that should have any power over anyone in Ontario.

Our response, Mr. Bryant, is that SOMEONE SHOULD BAN YOU. You have shamed the people of Ontario.

http://www.dogwatch.net/fight_ontario_ban/michael_bryant.html

Disclaimer: This is an open email list. Opinions expressed on this list are those of the list participants and may not necessarily reflect opinions of the members or the Dog Legislative Council of Canada.

CANADIAN DOG OWNERS NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

Luvmypit
October 25th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Did you send that out? That was perfect. Youhaveto send it out to all news and Mpp's. Who cares just get it out there. Its informative and clearly points out the FACTS.

mastifflover
October 25th, 2004, 12:11 PM
They will be getting my mass email again today

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
October 25th, 2004, 12:53 PM
Awesome! I sent it out to the MPPs as well. Also found this little gem:

http://www.dogwatch.net/myths/michael_bryant_must_quit.html

Sent that out as well.

Luvmypit
October 25th, 2004, 01:00 PM
I have a better feeling today then I did on October 15th. I feel more united in this cause and I think the amount of supporters has grown. Good job people. I'll keep writing my letters too!

sammiec
October 25th, 2004, 01:06 PM
Luvmypit, I am actually starting to feel a little more confident about this too. I still feel very discouraged when reading some of the posts here and stories in the papers by irresponsible reporters such as Michele M... what a tool! BUT that gives us more fuel for the fire and we refuse to take this uneducated misinformation!!

mastifflover
October 25th, 2004, 01:08 PM
Well I sent this to city tv. From what I heard last night was that city has had a pretty positive reaction to the emails opposing the ban

sammiec
October 25th, 2004, 01:16 PM
I emailed the Dog watch thing to ALL MPP's. We ALL send a request for his resignation...maybe that will get them listening.

heeler's rock!
October 25th, 2004, 02:13 PM
That you are all amazing dog owners! I can feel the passion you are all putting into this and I am so glad that you are all feeling more optimistic! :)

I am still sending e-mails and such and I will do whatever I can to help your cause from here. It's so nice to see easterners and westerners uniting for the same cause! Good job everyone!! :D

Luvmypit
October 25th, 2004, 02:20 PM
Thank you Heeler, without people who are non pit owners to help and stand with us this wouldn't be possible. They would just chalk up it us defending our breed. But when dog owners, non dog owners and pit owners get together and question this ban somebody is bound to listen.


So a big fat THANK YOU TO YOU and all non pit owners who has stood with us. It says more when you can say Hey Im not a pit owner but i still know this is wrong.....

mastifflover
October 25th, 2004, 02:40 PM
You are welcome because the bottom line is that it effects every dog and dog owner. I feel that we really need to stick together, amazing how much more we can accomplish as one large group than we can individually.

sammiec
October 25th, 2004, 03:54 PM
I tried to email my request for M.Bryant's resignation and I am completely banned from emailing... I keep receiving this:

did not reach the following recipient(s):

#MPP's Liberal (all) on Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:14:16 -0400
A restriction in the system prevented delivery of the message.
The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=ca;a=
;p=assembly;l=EXLIBERAL0410251714VK5SAP06
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:LIBERAL:EXLIBERAL

Is anyone else getting this??

Luvmypit
October 25th, 2004, 04:16 PM
YES I did today. I think its that they have blocked us. As far as i know they cannot restrict access to themselves as we are tax payers. Being a politician they have to be available to all aspects of society whether we agree with them or not. Atleast I thought they did. Maybe Im wrong.

Or try sending with a different heading rather then pit bull. They may have just "banned" ones with certain subject lines. If you put another subject and your still blocked then you know they have blocked your email address

mastifflover
October 25th, 2004, 04:22 PM
Well I sent it and it has not come back yet. I did not put anything in the subject line. I don't think they can block you unless you are harrassing them and I mean in the criminal sense.

sammiec
October 25th, 2004, 04:25 PM
I haven't been rude or harassing them. I have sent an email saying "Pit Bull Ban" in the subject and another "Please Read" I haven't not written one hateful word nor called anyone names... I don't get it!
:confused:

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
October 25th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Strange. The only thing I got back was that the email from one of the addresses' bounced back, but an hour later when I sent the email, it went through fine.

Luvmypit
October 25th, 2004, 04:33 PM
I take it as a big "shut up already" . They don't care. They figure come 4 years later we will forget. I know I won't.

heeler's rock!
October 25th, 2004, 06:14 PM
You are welcome Luvmypit! :D I agree with mastiff, it does affect all dog owners across the country. If we let the liberals push this through, then what's next? We have to take a stand now and unite as one voice to stop the government from pushing us around!! I really wish ALL dog owners were on board with our fight. Then the liberals would be scared that they wouldn't be re-elected as I would think the majority of people in Ontario own some type of dog.....

Sheriffmom
October 25th, 2004, 07:25 PM
I will be emailing this to my local papers, and MPPs.
I am also thinking that maybe we should be contacting Ontario, Canadian and American rescue groups, and breed groups. We should be enlisting their help. Especially breed and rescue groups that are being targeted (pitbull, mastiff, akita, GSD, bull terriers, Staffs, bulldogs etc...) Maybe also contact reput. breeders. Oh and the Military K9 corps, Customes K9 corps, and Police K9 corps, or and Search and Rescue. Also (sorry Iam using that word a lot!!) Celebrity voices carry farther then ours. Don CHerry, Alicia Silverstone, Bernadette Peters all own Pitbulls (or PitX), we should be emailing them to speak publically. There are probably tons of other dog loving celebs out there, who if contacted enough might make a public statement anti-ban (espec. if they think their adoring public would respect them for it!!)
Lastly I say we STRONGLY remind the liberals (prov. and fed.) "I for one will NEVER vote for another liberal" If you are a card carrying liberal, send the card back (cut up of course!!). Let the liberals at both levels that from now on they are on our "BANNED" list. As I for one am scared of a 200lb Liberal charging out of Queens Park and mauling my rights, and murdering/extincting a breed. :D