Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Letter I got from Tascona

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
November 22nd, 2004, 11:47 AM
Dear Ms. Edwards,

This will acknowledge receipt of your recent letter regarding Bill 132.

I can appreciate your views and comments on the matter. You provided
me with several links to websites of other concerned dog owners and I have
been in contact with many representatives of those organisations. As the
Attorney General critic, I am of the view that legislation should be
effective in addressing the problems posed by dangerous dogs, including
the issue of responsible dog ownership. Minister Bryant's proposed
legislation is ineffective in addressing these problems and fails to provide the
public with adequate protection against dangerous dogs.

At this point in time, Bill 132 is at the second reading debate. Below
I have attached links to Bill 132 and the Hansards for both the first and
second readings.

I urge you to voice your concerns with the Premier, Attorney General
and Liberal MPPs.

Should you have any more questions, concerns or comments please do not
hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Joe Tascona M.P.P.
Attorney General and Native Affairs Critic

http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/b132_e.htm
(Bill 132)

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/38_parl/Session1/L085A.htm
(first reading)

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/38_parl/Session1/L084.htm
(second reading)

Luvmypit
November 22nd, 2004, 12:00 PM
Got the same one today!!

mastifflover
November 22nd, 2004, 12:03 PM
I love the fact that some of these guys actually read the emails instead of just sending back an email that does not even address what you have written about.

Writing4Fun
November 22nd, 2004, 12:12 PM
Well, I must say I am pleasantly surprised to see that the e-mail I got from Mr. Tascona today was not entirely identical to yours. OK, so he didn't directly answer any of my questions either, and the last part about "here are the readings and contact the Premier etc..." are the same, but the opening paragraphs at least are somewhat personalized. At least his personal assistant is putting some effort into responding to these e-mail and letters.

pitbulliest
November 22nd, 2004, 08:13 PM
So what's going on with this whole bill? Do you guys think its gonna make it or is it gonna bite the dust?

Faceless
November 22nd, 2004, 09:52 PM
This bill is set in stone, i.e. it is guaranteed to be passed by the lap-dog Liberal majority. The best we can realistically hope for is some major amendments. Then, when Dalton and his band of buffoons get tossed in 3 years, hopefully you've reached enough Conservative/NDP M.P.P.s to get the law rescinded when the next government is formed.

kigaro
November 22nd, 2004, 10:30 PM
i agree with faceless in that the bill will be passed. however, i'm certain it will be challenged in the courts on it's constitutional viability. hopefully, this dirty piece of legislation will be recinded by the courts before 3 years is up.

Schwinn
November 23rd, 2004, 08:04 AM
I'd like to see the bill passed, minus the pit bull provision. I know right now that is basically the crux of the bill, but what I mean is I would like to see something done to strengthen the law to protect people from dangerous and agressive dogs , not breeds , something that needs to be done. I do hold a faint hope that this is still possible.

Faceless
November 23rd, 2004, 08:42 AM
Even beyond the Pit bull portion of the law, bill 132 is bad legislation. Yes, we may need updated dangerous dog laws, but 132 is not the solution.

As it stands now, bill 132 would let a police officer or animal control officer take your dog away for undefined menacing behaviour. Do you see how this could be abused? My neighbours don't like my Rottweilers, so they phone and make up some story of "menacing" behaviour (maybe my dog was excited and was running up and down the fence-line, barking loudly) and my dogs are taken away. Even WORSE, this bill purports that they can take away my dog if they feel he MAY bite or attack in the future, even if he has no history of doing so ... talk about Minority Report legislation.

Bill 132, ALL of it, needs to die. In its place, with the help of animal experts, a well-thought out, dangerous dog law should be implemented.

Schwinn
November 23rd, 2004, 09:17 AM
Even beyond the Pit bull portion of the law, bill 132 is bad legislation. Yes, we may need updated dangerous dog laws, but 132 is not the solution.

As it stands now, bill 132 would let a police officer or animal control officer take your dog away for undefined menacing behaviour. Do you see how this could be abused? My neighbours don't like my Rottweilers, so they phone and make up some story of "menacing" behaviour (maybe my dog was excited and was running up and down the fence-line, barking loudly) and my dogs are taken away. Even WORSE, this bill purports that they can take away my dog if they feel he MAY bite or attack in the future, even if he has no history of doing so ... talk about Minority Report legislation.

Bill 132, ALL of it, needs to die. In its place, with the help of animal experts, a well-thought out, dangerous dog law should be implemented.

Sorry, I should have thought out my answer better. I've been a little hyper-focused on the pitbull portion of the bill (Darn! BREAK the ritalin in TWO!!). You're right, and I agree whole-heartedly. I don't care if it's bill 132 or an entierely new bill, I just want to see something put into place that will help to curb the issue of dog attacks, and abuse. I think that it is possible, with a great deal or re-working, that this bill could do the job. In that, what I mean is, it's now in the legislature, and dialogue is open. Something needs to be done, but the way this bill is written now, this isn't it.

mastifflover
November 23rd, 2004, 09:31 AM
I agree this whole bill needs to be re-written to real focus on the problem of owner responsibility. They need to stiffen fines and include jail time and life time bans of owning pets on abusers. We need a bill, but one that is enforcable and has some teeth just not pit bull teeth. Then they will need to hire some desperately needed cruelty investigators and put their money where there very big mouths are and stop blaming the dogs and enforce these laws to protect the animals.