November 2nd, 2004, 04:14 PM
Mr. Kormos would like everyone who opposes the ban to e-mail him today or tomorrow so that he may read the e-mails during Thursday's Legislative meeting.
Please keep your e-mails short and factual. Only use statistics that you can back up and do NOT be emotional. I know that everyone would like to brag about their sweet dog, but this is not the time. (Sorry.)
Try not to mention other breeds either. I am well aware that my breed is second on the list to be banned, once the pit bulls are, and I sure would appreciate it if everybody didn't point that out. They might decide not to wait and add them on now, if you know what I mean. I am sure that German Shepherd owners, lab owners, etc feel the same way.
I don't have Mr. Kormos' address right at hand, so if someone has it handy while I go and look it up, please post it here!
November 2nd, 2004, 04:33 PM
Can you please update us with his contact information once more? I'm in the process of writing an email right now..just don't have his addy.
November 2nd, 2004, 04:45 PM
Here's what I found:
Also, I'm thinking maybe here would be a good idea for suggestions.
I'm thinking the fact that no one has ever been killed in Ontario by a pitbull. Also, the fact that they were bred to be people friendly. The fact that they really haven't been an issue up till about 15 years ago. Also, if someone could refute Bryant's facts, that would be a big plus! (I'd love to see that in the house!) I understand what you are saying, LavenderRott. What do you think about sending information about where the pitbull falls on the tempermant test, or on the list of bite incidents (without stating the dogs in front, unless it's something they wouldn't think of banning at this point, like the ****er spaniel), and referencing the sources, of course?
Also, maybe list some dogs that are used for work, like companion dogs, as well as dogs used in entertianment (like Petey, and the numerous ones on TV). If I can find it, I think I would mention the pitty that was a decorated war hero for saving 40 people in WWII
These are just quick points to kind of get a feel for what everyone thinks. I'm at work, and I'm going to try and do my own letter when I get home.
November 2nd, 2004, 04:45 PM
November 2nd, 2004, 05:14 PM
Here's the email I sent off:
Dear Mr. Kormos,
I want to offer my thanks to you and the NDP for your skepticism regarding Bill 132, the proposed pit bull ban. Breed specific bans do not make for a safer province or population, contrary to the claims of our provincial Attorney-General who said, "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. . . ." By reducing the number of 'pit bulls' in Winnipeg the government did cut the number of 'pit bull' incidents. However, 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 other specific breeds that began in 1991 - immediately after the ban was implemented, suggesting that owners who wanted aggressive dogs or were lax in supervising their animals simply moved to other breeds.
In Edmonton, city staff researched their own situation and found that "pit bulls" were a minor factor in the city's dog bite statistics, a fact corroborated by comparison with Ottawa and other major Canadian cities. As a result of their research into the difficulty of enforcing the ban and its lack of utility, they recommended that their city's legislation be amended to no longer ban breeds but instead to ban individual dogs who had demonstrated their dangerous behaviour. The complete report is available online at:
It is clear that breed bans do not reduce the danger of dog bites. The legislation proposed will not only be unfair for responsible citizens but it will give a false sense of security to those who have genuine cause to fear the individually dangerous and uncontrolled dogs in our communities. Bill 132, as it stands, only punishes the law-abiding, responsible dog owner and does nothing to increase public safety, while leaving municipalities holding the bag for an expensive, futile enforcement.
November 2nd, 2004, 05:31 PM
Ouch..maybe I should shorten down my email? Can someone please tell me which parts I should leave out so its not so lengthy?
Here it is:
Dear Mr. Kormos,
I would like you to add my letter, to the list of letters, phone calls, and complaints that I know you have been receiving regarding Michael Bryant's proposed pit bull ban in Ontario. Thank you for your concern and consideration.
I would like to start off by giving you some facts regarding breed specific legislation.
First of all, breed bans are not supported by the Veterinary Medical Association of Canada, by any authoritative canine organization, or by accurate statistical analysis. Furthermore, they are not supported by the Canadian Health and Safety Board.
Breed bans only ban a certain breed but do not address factors that lead up to bites/attacks/deaths caused by dogs. It is the irresponsible dog owners that are at fault, not a specific breed of dog. This is a simply ineffective, unjust, and a band-aid solution to a much bigger problem within society.
The International Journal of the Care of the Injured in 1996 published a study that found the banning of American Pit Bull Terriers, Rottweilers, and Dobermans DID NOT decrease the number of fatal attacks, but instead the same number of dog bites were occuring - but the breeds responsible were not of the proscribed breeds. Not to mention, certain places around the world are in the process of lifting such bans because they are simply do not work. Furthermore, results from the American Temperament Testing Society have shown that pit bull terriers scored a high mark of 84%, higher than Golden Retrievers and Beagles.
I ask, what is being done to ensure responsible ownership of ANY dog of ANY breed? There are animals being tortured, beaten, and trained specifically to BE aggressive and vicious by criminals, drug dealers, dogmen (as they like to call themselves), thieves, and all around sick individuals as we speak. Yet what is extremely dissapointing is that any legislation regarding cruelty towards animals has been either put on the back burner, refused, or ignored by the government in the past. This is what is causing dogs to become vicious in the first place. Does the government see nothing wrong here?
As the Dog Legislation Council of Canada has stated, dog ownership should not be an inherent right; it should be carefully regulated and properly enforced. Recognized factors that increase risks of bites include: Unaltered pets, unsocialized, negative early experiences, poor health, neglected, abused, exploited, lack of training, poor breeding (there are simply too many backyard breeders as compared to responsible ones), previous aggression issues, pregnant dogs, etc. An example of regulations would be a higher lecensing cost for unaltered dogs. The Toronto Humane Society is already taking a positive step forward by carefully screening individuals that are interested in adopting pit bulls. Why? Because they know that these dogs are targets of abuse and neglect by people who own them for the wrong reasons.
A dog that is raised and trained properly by a caring and responsible owner that obeys leash laws and ensures the safety of both the public and their dog, will never become an issue. It is the irresponsible owners that are causing these problems in the first place, yet nothing is being done. A breed ban will definately not solve this problem, as people that are already breaking the law and creating vicious beasts out of their dogs will continue to do so, and simply move onto other breeds when pit bulls are banned.
And last but not least, Michael Bryant's proposed pit bull ban will only force humane societies to kill thousands of pit bulls that cannot be adopted out because of this legislation, and many wonderful family pets will end up as subjects to cruel experiments performed by laboratories since shelters will be forced to give dogs to these scientific testing organizations.
I thank you for your interest in this issue, and hope that my information will be passed onto the government, and to Michael Bryant himself, which simply refuses to listen to anybody that is not on his side of the argument. Thank you again, and I do hope to hear from you soon.
5 Capri Road APT 706
(416) 621 7919
November 2nd, 2004, 05:39 PM
ancaret:That's really good!
pitbullest:Yours is good too. I think the only thing I would do is clarify the statistic about the American Temperment Testing Society, and what that means the the pitbull scored higher. Just in case it is misconstrued as meaning more aggressive. And if you could add a link, that'd be excellent. I don't know if you need to pare it down, but if you want to, then I'd remove the part about what will happen to these dogs. As tragic as that is, I think Bryant has already proven he doesn't care. There are other places you could pare it down, but I don't think you need to. Well done!
November 4th, 2004, 05:07 PM
After taking four hours to write a letter to him with statistics and lots of information, and manny others did the same..... WHAT DID HE SAY?? NOTHING!!!! what was it all for. The only person who said anything was Tascona a PC for goodness sakes!!!!!! lol (sorry to PC ppl out there) What is going on I thought he wanted our letters?!?!?!? :confused: :( :mad:
November 4th, 2004, 08:54 PM
I guess i'll have to phone to find that out???
November 5th, 2004, 08:53 AM
Here it is from yesterday, about 3 quarters down.
November 5th, 2004, 07:09 PM
Man ! that was long . Many good points raised by Mr Tascona . The reverse-onus regarding having to prove your dog is not a pitbull is very interesting and might even be unconstitutional , also the search and siezure issue was addressed , the winnipeg stats were mentioned and shot down . Like I said it is long but worth reading .
November 5th, 2004, 09:09 PM
Joe T. & P. Kormos.
I called P's const. office today & it closes at lunch on Friday...So I called his Legislature office & got a main opertor to NDP offices, Howard Hampton's office (all of this is long distance!) :rolleyes: so I left a message.
Lesson learned: Government is still the same as when I worked there. Never try to get anything/information on FRIDAY!! ;)
November 8th, 2004, 08:28 AM
Julie Munro, MPP for Georgina was in the local paper on Friday (or Thursday, whenever it comes) speaking against the ban. She's also a dog breeder, so she would be another good person to address! I'll see if I can find a copy of the article online. I haven't had much luck so far. This is what I found for contact info:
I think I read somewhere she was also pushing for legislation against puppy mills.