November 5th, 2004, 08:39 AM
Tascona said this:
What municipalities need are the tools to do the job, and the criminal law has to be addressed. Muzzled and leashed pit bulls or other dangerous dogs in public is warranted, :mad: but will not protect victims from dogs that bolt from their owner's house or property and attack a human being or other creature
He did also put forward good arguements against the legislation and called for public hearings.
You can read the whole debate here:
November 5th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Ooops! I just posted that! Sorry, I was reading while you were posting. I should have double-checked!
November 5th, 2004, 08:56 AM
I just read the whole thing and I think that Tascona did a GREAT job!
November 5th, 2004, 08:59 AM
i just didn't like how he lumped pitbulls and dangerous dogs together like that. He does go on to argue that there are problems with the definition of "pitbull" He should have just said dangerous dogs. :confused:
November 5th, 2004, 09:43 AM
I pulled this out of your link Schwinn:
Mr Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): It's a pleasure to rise on this issue. This is a difficult issue for those of us who have grown up with animals, love animals, have interacted with animals and had our children interact with animals.
In my youth, I spent a long time on a farm, and we had a beloved farm dog that was actually capable of living off the land. Unfortunately, one day that dog was put near a young child, snapped at the child and severed its tear duct. It broke our hearts. We had to keep that dog restrained, although we thought it was the most gentle, tame dog.
I've had other experiences where I've seen dogs turn without call. The pit bull itself is probably not the most dangerous dog, except for the phenomenal jaw pressure it has. Its jaws have one of the highest pressure points of any dog around. I, who have witnessed many dogs turn and be violent, am concerned not just about the pit bull but about all dogs.
While I personally am a dog lover -- I have dogs and I raised my children with dogs -- the overwhelming evidence from all places is that this dog is a very dangerous dog. One child attacked, one person killed, are too many for a breed of dogs.
So it's with some regret and some hesitation that I support this, but this is excellent, safe legislation. This is what a government is empowered to do: to protect ourselves. It's wonderful to be able to stand and rise and support Mr Bryant and this legislation.
This man is an animal lover and is ONLY for this ban because of this incorrect information that he has... please, help me educate him to realize that this information is NOT true and CANNOT be proven!
November 5th, 2004, 09:44 AM
Here's my letter I sent regarding that statment:
Dear Mr. Peterson;
I read your input into yesterday's Legislative Meeting (November 4, 2004). I was happy to read that you are an avid dog lover and that you share the very same love and admiration for animals. I was however a little disheartened when you mentioned that you supported the ban on pit bulls. With this statement:
"I've had other experiences where I've seen dogs turn without call. The pit bull itself is probably not the most dangerous dog, except for the phenomenal jaw pressure it has. Its jaws have one of the highest pressure points of any dog around. I, who have witnessed many dogs turn and be violent, am concerned not just about the pit bull but about all dogs."
I wish to inform you that the information you gave regarding the strength of the pit bull's bite is incorrect. They are strong animals, yes; this is based on their determination and will to hold on. This ability to hold on was bred into pit bulls from BULL DOGS used for bull baiting
There is no scientific method of determining the strength of a pit bull's bite. There not sufficient information that should lead one to believe that a pit bull's bite is anymore significant then that of a Lhasa Apso.
There are many myths about these dogs that NEED to be addressed within the Assembly meetings. These myths are what the Hon. Attorney General Michael Bryant is basing his ban on. With a proper investigation into the reasons for the ban, a fair and logical outcome can determine which doesn't include the slaughter of innocent animals.
"Did you know that pit bulls are no more vicious than golden retrievers, beagles or other popular dogs! In a recent study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATT), pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That's as good or better than beagles ... 78.2%, and golden retrievers ... 83.2%. How did your favorite breed do?
See for yourself: http://www.atts.org."
Pit Bulls are wonderful animals that deserve a chance to have a good life like any other dog. However, it's important to remember that Pit Bulls are not just any other dog - They are a little more of everything a dog can be.
Please review the information and the sites that I have provided. An educated decision, be it for or against the ban, is far more acceptable then one based on false information and emotion.
November 5th, 2004, 10:57 AM
when are the public hearings?
November 5th, 2004, 11:17 AM
Well if Michael Bryant is involved be assured he will post the wrong date or cancel them. He does not want the other politicians to figure out he is a liar (oops forgot he is a politican)
November 5th, 2004, 11:42 AM
I too, was really impressed with Joe Tascona. I especially like this part--
"I also want to deal with some other information that has been put forth by the Attorney General on this matter because I think his credibility, quite frankly, is in question, and so is this bill as an instrument of protecting the public."
I like how he basically refuted every statistice the Bryant brought up. Did anyone else find it ironic that when Tascona brought up the Alabama case, Bryant mocked him? Isn't he the one using statistics from the US.
Just my thought, but I think we need to keep providing satistics, as well as sources, to the members of the legislature, and send info and thanks to Tascona. He keeps asking for Bryant to provide the e-mails he recieved, imagine if Tascona was able to counter with his own stack! I'm also thinking that it might be a good idea to parse out the arguements from Tascona and send them to some media outlets, since I haven't yet seen any coverage of his comments. I'm feeling a little better about this...
November 5th, 2004, 11:52 AM
This is an expert for my favourite part. Tascona has backed MB into a corner!!!
He goes on to state, "Most of the people that I have heard from through thousands of e-mails have indicated that they already put a muzzle on their pit bull." Thousands? Really? Where are they? Who has seen them? Are these e-mails only from cities with mandatory muzzle legislation? Is the minister willing to provide those e-mails as evidence? Because he has an evidentiary problem. If I were acting as the judge, I'd say to Minister Bryant, "Show me the evidence. Prove to me you've got a case." He hasn't proven anything.
He goes on to state, "Even more interesting, attacks in Winnipeg by all breeds of dogs, once numbering 30 to 40 per year, have decreased overall. A decade after their pit bull ban was instituted, dog attacks number about one per year, refuting the claim that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs." Winnipeg statistics show -- this is my response -- that the dog bites have been running in excess of 200 per year since the ban. The annual number of dog bites rose after the Winnipeg ban was implemented. This statement by the Attorney General certainly is not correct.
November 5th, 2004, 12:40 PM
Somebody like Schwinn could put together an email package with all the facts and data to back up the issues. If you presented him with a complete package at his fingertips to refute MB he would not have to spend time looking for info and spend more time backing MB into a corner and showing how little time and research MB put into it. We have so much info here that could be put into one complete package and Sammie you write a hell of a letter without your own emotions getting into it. As a group the pit bull owners who have been highly active got together and worked on different sections you could do it in a tenth of the time that it would take him to find the just some of the pertinent information.
November 5th, 2004, 12:46 PM
I'm all for it. If someone can get a package together Scwhinn and Dukieboy?? Then I will write a letter (with your input of course) and we can send that into the Attorney General, MPP's and organizations on beahalf of our board!!
Great idea (as usual) Mastifflover! ;)
November 5th, 2004, 12:54 PM
Thanks but you guys have done a lot of research and you dont need to preach to the converted but it would be great if Tascona opens an email with all facts and figures and back up for them he just needs to read and then bury MB with facts and figures
November 5th, 2004, 01:04 PM
heres his email
I am gonna leave the writing to you guys cuz facts and figures aren't my specialty. neither is spelling ;)
I got some snail mail from him yesterday essentially saying that he is on it.
November 5th, 2004, 01:23 PM
I'll see what I can come up with. I'm wondering if a few people sent letters, that might be better. I'm only thinking if he gets a lot, he might not be able to read each one. Sending one there's the possibility it gets skipped? Just a thought. We could post what we find here, and everyone can put something together.