Why won't Mr. Bryant help me?

In the past few years, I have been bitten, or attempted to be bitten by, at least two dogs. I had a dog lunge at my face, close enough I felt it's breath. I had to put myself between my sister (who lost half her lip and had to have plastic surgery due to a bite as a child) and a dog wondering a bike trail. A couple of times. I was chased by two large dogs who came off of thier property after me while I was rollerblading (and in the mean time broke a personal record for speed...and heart rate). I have had to stare down dogs I have met who were aggressive, and fortunatly, because I did not show fear, I won before they attacked, or was able to back out of the situation.

None of these were pitbulls. I have never had a pitbull attack me, or try to hurt me, or even be aggressive towards me. I'm sure there are those that have done that, but not to me. All of my stories fit what Michael Bryant wants to protect me from, except for one fact:they weren't pitbulls. And because of that, they would not have been prevented. Ironically, because my own beloved dog is a pitbull, his bill affects me only one way--negatively.

---------------------------------

I'm thinking of sending this in an e-mail to a few MPPs, when I get the chance this weekend. (Don't want to send from my work e-mail). Just want to know what you think, and if any other pitbull owners have interesting stories of experiences with dogs that are similar to my own?

I like how you set it up . Its good and points out one major point. Banning pits is not going to prevent the numerous attacks that happen every day.
Also like how you tied in the fact that this ban wouldn't have prevented those dog bites or aggressiveness but that now because of the ban you are being affected in a different way.

I think that gets the point across and it is direct. I also have been bitten once by a Newf but it was my own fault I startled him he was partially blind. The owner was beside herself and just about fell over when I said it was my fault I scared him. Then I was bitten by a white fluffy thing that bit my dog as well we just had our case heard in court last week and the little b**** now has a muzzle order and must be on a leash. The woman said that if the new law were in place my dog would be banned. I did not know that they were banning English Mastiffs must have missed that one. The judge also made a comment to the woman who was still trying to blame me (I had a witness) he told her if this were to happen if this BSL were in place under the law as it reads now her dog could be pts for its aggressivness and also the dog you are referring to is not a pit bull unless they are growing them 3 times there normal size. He was very cool about the whole thing.

Michael Bryant won't help you because he doesn't even know how to help himself. If he did, he would have been in a mental institute years ago...

The proposed Bill does cover "menacing" behavior by all dogs as well.

Define "menacing" . Is it barking , is it growling , is it running at a human , jumping up or knocking into someone ? I think it is open to interpretation and all of those actions could be considered aggressive especially by a neighbour that might not like the dog or the owner . So I suppose when you say meanacing it could very well include every dog in the province .But only pitbulls will be banned you know the ones that were involved in 7 incidents in Toronto last year 2003 but got all the media attention not the sheppards that were involved in 30 or more and recieved no attention from bryant or the media .Not the Mastiffs like the one that killed the little girl in Stouffville in 1999 , nor the Rotweiler that dragged a postal worker down the street by her head last week in Orrillia So I fail to see the logic in trying to convince the public that you are making the province a safer place by elimiating a dog that is involved in fewer incidences than dogs you are not going to ban
The dog bites will continue or possibly increase as they did in Winnipeg but the public will be so relieved that pitbull incidents have decreased won't they now ?

I think that gets the point across and it is direct.

Hmmm...maybe it doesn't to everyone. ;)

Menacing would mean that every dog in this province is at risk even if you own one of those little things that snap it will no longer be considered cute that your little dog is attacking the big dog. Because if someone complains about it size does not matter.

Don't mean to be cynical, but I'll believe that when I see it...your recent court case being the exception, of course...

Menacing would mean that every dog in this province is at risk even if you own one of those little things that snap it will no longer be considered cute that your little dog is attacking the big dog. Because if someone complains about it size does not matter.

Would it not be a kick in the arse if Bryant's dog was considered menacing?

This is why Bill 132 affects every dog owner, and why I get so fed up when dog owners themselves support this ban; by supporting it, they may possibly send their dogs to the Rainbow Bridge, just for acting like a dog.