Stop Pit Bull Ban in Ontario

[Stewart]

Hi!Could someone answer a question for me as I am curious after reading through this topic here over a few days now.My question is Have you ever over there had licenceing laws attached to dog owenership ? I do realise that in a huge country such as yours and with big states that you have it would be a real big logistical job.Also I can see that it still wouldnt be a quick fix against against the Idiots around who make these dogs into ferocious animals as I say I am just curious

[LavenderRott]

Originally Posted by frustrating

Thats a bad example, because for most of the last 20 years in the United States there has been no assualt weapon ban.

Who has more of a problem with assualt weapons per capita ?

They have nearly 350 more gun related injuries.

Anyways, I agree with what your saying but I wouldn't use that example because of the above and because.

What about Rocket Launchers, Combat lasers etc... they're banned here, why are there almost none ? Because they are banned in the United States. Our Weapons come from there, pretty much every single one.

The other big difference is No one can tell you have an assualt weapon you can keep it secret forever if you want, you could even hide one in the house your wife wouldn't know you have. Can't hide your pit.

Suggesting you don't use the example does not invalidate your point.

I don't generally use this analogy for exactly those reasons. However, assault weapons are used with much greater frequency than some would like to admit by the criminal element. The only reason that I used it here is because BTPB whipped it out like it was some kind of major accomplishment.

[LavenderRott]

Originally Posted by Stewart

Hi!Could someone answer a question for me as I am curious after reading through this topic here over a few days now.My question is Have you ever over there had licenceing laws attached to dog owenership ? I do realise that in a huge country such as yours and with big states that you have it would be a real big logistical job.Also I can see that it still wouldnt be a quick fix against against the Idiots around who make these dogs into ferocious animals as I say I am just curious

Almost every city in the U.S. and Canada has some requirement about licensing your dog with that city. Most dogs that attack, however, are unlicensed. This is because there is really no way to enforce a licensing law unless the dog gets loose. Then the fine is about $100 plus the cost of a license.

[heeler's rock!]

Oooohhhhh...BANTHEPITBULL......don't EVEN try calling me a racist!!!!!!!!!! You are really REALLY getting on my nerves. I am east indian and I don't have a racist bone in my body. My hubby is spanish, my best friend is white and her husband is black. You don't know me, or anything about me, so screw off!! It was an analagy that I feel you would agree with given that you are so stupid. Your 4 year old cousin most definitely should not have been left alone and his parents should have known better, but lets not blame them or the owner of the pit that let him loose, no, lets blame the helpless animal. If your 4 year old cousin started a fire because his "responsible" parents left matches out, would be preaching to have him put to sleep? No, you would blame the stupid parents that left matches lying around, and you would ask why they weren't watching him. Dumb a$$!!! The guy walking the 2 pits that attacked him, I can guarentee you there is more to that story that the media hasn't devulged. You need to get a life and do more research on a topic you know nothing about. You have some nerve calling someone you don't even know a racist. Thank you for proving my point that you really are one stupid idiot.

[Lucky Rescue]

when a pitbull from half a block away came wandering on HIS property and held the hood of his jacket in his teeth...when his parents came and managed to save their kid...

So are you calling this an attack? You don't mention what injuries were inflicted on anyone.

Was the child injured in any way? Were the parents? What wounds did they have? How did the parents "manage to save" the child without being hurt? (Or WERE they?)? I've never heard of a dog attack in which no one was bitten. If no one was bitten or hurt, how does this classify as an attack?

What is YOUR definition of an "attack"?

[chico2]

I have been reading most of what has been written,people being called racist etc....it is getting a little ugly
BTPB,came on here to get people riled up and it worked....there are people like him/her in every chat-room
This is after all a Forum for people who care about animals,including Pit-Bulls,he/she just does not belong here,but he/she is unfortunately saying what the majority of Ontarians are.
It's really very sad

[Sneaky2006]

when a pitbull from half a block away came wandering on HIS property and held the hood of his jacket in his teeth...

This does not sound like an attack... it sounds like a pit bull trying to save a kid from morons!

[BANTHEPITBULL]

What a proposed pitbull ban/dangerous dog legislation in Ontario should do:

-> Outright ban on all *new* pitbull and rott puppies/breeding/sale/purchase.

-> Ban pitbulls/rotts from densely populated areas.

-> Equate crime of the dog as being a crime of the owner and deal accordingly, levying massive fines and imprisonment.

-> Deal with existing pitbull/rott population. This is the most contentious issue,
---> Euthanise those currently in shelters. Do not promote further adoption.
---> For those people who currently own pitbulls/rotts and are obviously deeply attached to their dogs, a delicate approach is needed...which both prevents another pitbull/rott bite but also takes into consideration the fact that these dogs are probably family members now, and you just can't take them away for euthanization.
On this point, I am not sure what will work, but muzzling and short leashes aren't likely to be much effective. A combination of things are probably required, including substantial liability coverage requirements.


What could be the results of such a ban :

-> Gradually eliminate pitbull and rott population in Ontario. It took Britain 10-15 years to do that.

-> Pitbull attacks would and should be eliminated. Keeps the govt and the vast majority of the public happy and safe (atleast from pitbulls). Mission accomplished for the McGuinty government. If pitbull attacks still continue after such a law takes effect, the govt would be pushed to ban all pitbulls in sight (euthanize them 'all).

-> A lot of pitbulls would be saved from a lot of agony, especially those in rescue situations/shelters. Pitbull is also probably the most abused breed.

From what I understand, most people get pitbulls/rotts precisely because they are amongst the most powerful and aggressive dogs available; though some get them from shelters,etc...which isn't really a bad thing.

However, I am yet to come across a single responsible pitbull owner.

[Lucky Rescue]

From what I understand, most people get pitbulls/rotts precisely because they are amongst the most powerful and aggressive dogs available

Your "understanding" obviously comes from sensationalistic news reports, and you are dead wrong.

Do you know what Rottweilers were bred for? To pull carts and herd cattle. Did you know that? Do you think "the most aggressive dog available" would be a good choice for those chores? Again, please try and EDUCATE yourself so you don't sound so ignorant.
And like most owners of these breeds, everyone on this board who owns them are extremely responsible people.

AND again:

when a pitbull from half a block away came wandering on HIS property and held the hood of his jacket in his teeth...when his parents came and managed to save their kid..

.


So are you calling this an attack? You don't mention what injuries were inflicted on anyone.

Was the child injured in any way? Were the parents? What wounds did they have? How did the parents "manage to save" the child without being hurt? (Or WERE they?)? I've never heard of a dog attack in which no one was bitten. If no one was bitten or hurt, how does this classify as an attack?

What is YOUR definition of an "attack"?..
-----------------------------------------------------------

Can you please stop spewing hatred and misinformation long enough to answer these questions? YOU brought up this "attack" and we would like to know the details of it.

[Bugsy]

Ban the pitbull

Anyone who chooses such a name and comes to a place named PETS.ca is simply someone who thrives on arguements.... enough said.

[heeler's rock!]

And what then BTPB? Ban dobermans? Ban mastiffs? Ban shelties? Ban bulldogs? Ban chihuahuas? Ban great danes? Ban heelers? And the list goes on and on and on.......BANS DON'T WORK!!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!! You are so naieve to think that banning ANYTHING is gonna stop dog attacks. I am so tired of hearing people tell you the same things over and over again. Your posts make no sense and I for one would like to stop reading your BS, so please, unless you have a compelling argument to make about why pits should be banned, just get lost. This forum is for helping people and their pets, including pitbulls. This thread is to come up with ideas on how to STOP THE BAN, not promote it! (That's why the title is STOP PITBULL BAN IN ONTARIO. That should have been your first clue to stay away, DUH!!!)

[Akeeter]

Originally Posted by Stewart

Hi!Could someone answer a question for me as I am curious after reading through this topic here over a few days now.My question is Have you ever over there had licenceing laws attached to dog owenership ? I do realise that in a huge country such as yours and with big states that you have it would be a real big logistical job.Also I can see that it still wouldnt be a quick fix against against the Idiots around who make these dogs into ferocious animals as I say I am just curious

*******************
This is one of the problems I have with BSL. (I mentioned that Ontario is bigger than Texas, & a lot of that arera is no picnic to drive in for 7 months of the year.) I can't see BSL working for many reasons, not the least of which is the impossibility of enforcing it in an area this large. Every year there are puppymills busted in the bush, sometimes with hundreds of dogs involved. If somebody can make a buck out this, they will. The newspaper ad price of an intact F. Pitt Bull has gone from about $200.00/$250.00 to over $500.00.

If you are referrng to a graduated license system for larger or more dominant dogs, no we don't have that. (Likely we should, but if Gov's get involved it will involve paying more for these dogs, & no component of education about that breed will be part of the licensing system, or finding out the competence of the potential owner.) Paying more in licensing fees does nothing to improve safety, & lower dog bite stats. IMHO, part of the problem now is too many 12 to 21 year old 'tuff guys' are in charge of these dogs. And drug dealers never seem to be short of cash to pay for what they want.

We do have a basic dog licensing system, & pay less in most areas for spayed/neutered dogs. (In my area, senior citizens get a price break) But from the number of John Doe dogs that show up unlicensed &
un-microchipped at shelters, I couldn't even guess about what percentage of dogs are licensed, never mind spayed or neutered. Inmates at most shelters & pounds tend to be intact males, without identification of any kind.

[Akeeter]

Originally Posted by BANTHEPITBULL

Quote "Anti-ban and pro-ban people, the reasonable ones at least, all want the same end result: Stopping dog attacks."

That is absolutely right. But, at this time, pitbulls are the focus because there simply have been too many pitbull attacks recently. If pitbulls are banned, and then we find that rottweiler attacks are going up, then presumably rottweilers would be banned. And they are infact banned in most countries of the world. Rottweiler owners would need to let their dogs off-leash and go attack other people and pets in Canada before we have a discussion on banning rottweilers here.

Banning the breed altogether seems like the only viable solution so far, as no one has come up with any other suggestions that would prevent pitbull attacks specifically. The onus is on those who don't like the idea of a breed specific ban to propose viable solutions. As I said earlier, muzzle-when-outdoors and keeping pitbulls on short leash aren't likely to solve the problem. Having strict punishments and fines and million dollar liability insurance coverages is also unlikely to prevent such attacks, as people are unlikely to remain vigilant about their pitbulls all the time.

So if you've got ideas and you really don't want a ban banning pitbulls, then you need to let the right people know about your suggestions.

**************
Probably for every 100 resp. Rotti owners, there will be 1 idiot who will make the news with an attack by his dog, multiplied by the number of idiots owning Rottis per 100, & there we will be, back at square 1 with a Rotti ban on the horizon...& So on & so on..

"You can't legislate against stupidity." Or irresponsibility.

Most of the Pit Bull bans world wide have Not changed dog bite stats. They only stats that change involve Pit bulls, the bite incidents stay @ about the same number. Serious bites too.
Which 'right people'? Can you suggest how we get them to take the plugs out of their ears? Most of them seem to be fuelled by the idea that this is a promise they Can keep. (ROTFLMAO!) Maybe they might be able to, but it will cost them a bundle to do it.

[Cflat]

So very sad indeed. People need to be responsible for their children. If your child is a minor he/she is your responsibility. That is the legacy of a parent. If your dog is at large and bites someone you are responsible. A dog is like a minor child, your responsibility. If your dog is on your property and bites someone who was not invited that is your responsibility as the "bitten" or the parent of the "bitten". I do not believe in BSL, I believe in owner responsibility. People that have to own a powerful dog and are not responsible (spay/neuter/socialized/trained/loved as a family memeber) need to be shot and peed on. Those who keep these dogs will continue to after a ban and make money doing it. Give your head a shake BSL people. Register your guns it will decrease crime. Criminals don't register their weapons.

[Lucky Rescue]

People that have to own a powerful dog and are not responsible (spay/neuter/socialized/trained/loved as a family memeber)

Thank you Cflat - I meant to bring up that point. Of all the lurid "PIT BULL ATTACKS" in the hysterical headlines, most of the stories have a recurring theme. Besides the fact that many of these dogs are NOT pit bulls, I have yet to see one spayed/neutered, socialized, trained and loved housepet/family member pit bull implicated.

Invariably the articles contain references to the dog being a "guard dog", "getting off it's chain" or out of it's "cage". Dogs who live on chains, are kept outside, and in cages are not family member housepets, nor are they likely to be spayed or neutered or socialized. And they certainly aren't likely to be loved.

[BANTHEPITBULL]

heeler's rock you are not even worth responding to.

for the others, I can understand if you have concerns with how the ban/legislation will affect you directly (will/won't be allowed to keep your pitbull,etc), but surely, you still cannot be supporting continued breeding and adoption of pitbulls and rotts. If you aren't willing to concede an inch, and are still insisting on a Nothing approach (education for owners,etc), and are relaying this same message in all your communications to the govt and the media....boy...you are really hurting your cause. It suits me completely that every single pitbull is taken off the streets of Ontario by Nov 1, but that is not what I have been advocating, until now that is.

A simple fact is that pitbulls and rotts are banned from most communities and countries in the world, and for good reason. And if the ban can work for Kitchener, it can work for Toronto and the rest of Ontario. Doesn't matter if the ban failed in other places, just ONE is good enough.

This thread is to come up with ideas on how to STOP THE BAN, not promote it! (That's why the title is STOP PITBULL BAN IN ONTARIO. That should have been your first clue to stay away, DUH!!!)

And I intend to disrupt your efforts in trying to stop the ban, online or offline...at your rally..whenever and wherever it happens. You still don't get it heeler's rock, do you ?

[heeler's rock!]

heeler's rock you are not even worth responding to.

You just said I'm not worth responding too, yet, you respond to me....??

You still don't get it heeler's rock, do you ?

The only thing I get from you BTPB, is that you have no sense of morality. These pitbulls didn't ask to be in the hands of malicious and uncaring individuals, and those individuals should be punished for their deeds. They are hurting the breed and the people who love them.
Pitbulls are not the problem! People that mistreat them are! We are saying that there needs to be tougher laws on irresponsible breeders and irresponsible owners!! You still don't get THAT do you BTPB???!???!???

And if the ban can work for Kitchener, it can work for Toronto and the rest of Ontario. Doesn't matter if the ban failed in other places, just ONE is good enough.

Once again, YOUR POST MAKES NO SENSE!!
We have said on this thread, as well as others, that the ban in Kitchener did not work, so why are you assuming it did? Bans have failed EVERYWHERE!!! You did read this thread before responding didn't you? Otherwise you'd look pretty ignorant! Oh wait, maybe you didn't because you do look pretty ignorant!!

[LavenderRott]

BEING A BY-LAW FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF DOGS WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP OF MARIPOSA.



WHEREAS the Dog licensing and Livestock and Poultry Protection Act provides that By-laws be passed by Council of a local municipality for licensing and requiring the registration of dogs and for prohibiting or regulating the running at large of dogs in the Municipality.

WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Act Part 104 and Part 210 allows the passing of by-laws regulating the keeping of animals and regulations for the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality.

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MARIPOSA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. DEFINITIONS
(a) "abused dog"...means any dog which is;
(1) mistreated, beaten, tormented or teased
(2) deprived of water, or food, or shelter
(3) kept under unsanitary conditions
(4) abandoned
(5) trained for fighting other animals

(b) "at large"...means of the premises of the "owner" or keeper and not under the control of any person by any means. Mere presence of the "owner" or keeper does not indicate control. "At large" may also include a leashed dog which is not under the control of the "owner" or keeper. MUNICIPAL ACT-----SECTION 210 4

(c) "By-Law Enforcement Officer" includes a person or persons appointed by the By-Law of the Township of Mariposa for the purpose of enforcing the provisions contained in this By-Law or any of the other By-laws of the Corporation.

(d) "dog" means male or female dog - DOG LICENSING AND LIVESTOCK AND
POULTRY PROTECTION ACT------SECTION 123 1

(e) "Dog Control Officer" means any person appointed by the By-Law of the Council for the Corporation for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this By-Law or any act of the Legislature giving local municipalities authority to regulate or control any dog or its "owner".



(f) "enclosure"...means a pen or kennel run of sufficient height and stability to contain a specific dog and forming a confined area with no sides sharing a common fencing with a perimeter fence. It must be capable of confining a dog in a secure and humane manner and approved by the By-Law Enforcement Officer. The enclosure must have a secure top attached to all sides. The sides must either be buried two feet into the ground or sunken into a concrete pad. The gate to the pen or kennel run must be self closing and have a lock.

(g) "hearing"...means the consideration of evidence presented by a "panel" including the following of Schedule A (evidence) as a means of assessing the degree of infraction and whether or not there has been an infraction.

(h) "kennel"...means a place, whether enclosed or not, where dogs are kept for the purposes of breeding, boarding or commercial purposes.

(i) "notice"...means any communication whether in writing or verbal.

(j) "nuisance dog"...means any dog in non compliance with the Township of Mariposa Leash By-Law.

(k) "owner"...of a dog includes a person who possess or harbours a dog, and where the owner is a minor, the person responsible for the custody of the minor.(Municipal Act, Sec.210, 6a {a} )

(l) "panel"...means three persons selected by the Township of Mariposa By-Law Enforcement Office in sequence from a list of qualified individuals - with at least one person familiar where possible with the particular breed type in question - who are knowledgeable about dog behaviour, including but not limited to Veterinarians, dog obedience trainers, dog handlers, and dog breeders. The Township of Mariposa By-Law Enforcement Officer shall establish, control and maintain this list. The assistance of other organizations may be solicited in establishing and compiling the list. In no case may the By-Law enforcement Officers be allowed to be included on this list.
MUNICIPAL ACT----SECTION 210 6 (C) ????

(m) "pure-bred"...means
(1) registered or eligible for registration in the register of the Canadian Kennel Club, Incorporated, or,
(2) of a class designated from time to time as pure bred in the regulations pursuant to the Dog Licensing and Livestock and Poultry protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 123.

[LavenderRott]

(n) "potentially dangerous dog"...means
(1) any dog that without provocation and while at "large" approaches in an obviously and distinctly threatening manner, any person, or,
(2) any dog which attacks and injures another domestic animal without provocation,
(3) any dog which is allowed to injure or kill wildlife
(4) any abused dog not withstanding clause n) 2)

(o) "Township"...means the Corporation of the Township of Mariposa.

(p) "vicious dog"...means
(1) any dog that inflicts injury by biting or by attacking upon a human being
(2) any dog owned or harboured primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting or any dog trained for dog fighting.
(i) in the instance that serious injury is inflicted on a Human Being under the criterion of either p) (1) or p) 2) then this instance is to be reviewed by a "hearing" by a "panel" in order that it be determined if the action on the part of the dog was warranted and normal behaviour in light of individual circumstances of the event, with consideration for; DOG OWNERS LIABILITY ACT-[65,400] FINES $5000.00 [65,050] AND SECTION [65,300]?????
(a) no dog is arbitrarily considered "vicious" for inflicting injury or damage on a person committing a wilful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog, or teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or committing or attempting to commit a crime.
In the same context no dog will be arbitrarily be considered "potentially dangerous" for inflicting injury or damage on a domestic animal that was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog.
(b) no dog is considered "vicious" for taking action to defend or protect the owner or other person from an attack or assault by another person or animal.
(c) no dog is arbitrarily considered "vicious" or "potentially dangerous" if it is protecting or defending (erroneously or otherwise) its young or other animal. The owner will however be held responsible and correspondingly charged if by negligence or by choice he allows innocent persons or animals to be injured by a dog known to be in the situation where it would feel compelled to protect its young or other animals. It is the responsibility of the owner to be knowledgeable of his dogs idiocincracies.

[LavenderRott]

The fine will be a minimum of $50.00 to a maximum of $500.00

Infractions will be decided by the By-Law Enforcement Officer unless by his/her choice he/she wishes a "hearing" by a "panel".




REGULATIONS

2. (a) Unless otherwise provided in this By-Law, the "owner" of every dog in the Township of Mariposa shall before the 31st day of March in each year cause the same to be registered and licensed either at the office of the Clerk of the Township of Mariposa, at Oakwood, or, with Dog Control Officer, and shall cause any dog so registered and licensed to wear upon its neck a collar to which shall be attached a dog tag issued by the Township for the current year.

(b) Each dog tag shall bear a serial number and the year of issue and a record shall be kept in the Township office showing the serial number of all issued tags and the name and address of the "owner" in each case.

(c) If a tag is lost or misplaced for any reason, the "owner" shall make application for, and upon payment of a fee of $.0.25, shall be entitled to a replacement tag.

(d) Every license shall be for the calendar year in which it was issued and shall expire on the 31st day of December of the year in which it was issued.

(e) This section shall not apply to a dog found within the Township of Mariposa and properly licensed for the current year by another Municipality.

3. (a) Upon procuring a license tag in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, a person so applying shall pay a license fee as follows: MUNICIPAL ACT 210 6d AND THE DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT CHAPTER 123 PART 1 2(1)
i) for a male/female dog - $10.00
ii) for a second male/female - $10.00
iii) for each additional dof male/female - $10.00

(b) The owner of a "kennel" of "pure bred dogs" may apply for a special license which will include all pure bred dogs within the "kennel". This license shall be called a Kennel License and can only be issued to said persons if they are currently members of and in good standing with the C.K.C.--DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT SEC. 123 3.

[LavenderRott]

(C) The Owner of a kennel of purebred dogs registered in the Register of The Canadian Kennel Club, shall apply for all pure bred dogs within the Kennel and such license shall be regulated as follows:
i) The annual fee for a kennel license shall be $25.00 payable to the Clerk of the Corporation, or to the Dog Control Officer, and the owner shall not be liable to pay any further license fee in respect of such purebred dogs while they remain in the kennel.


ii) Before licensing any such kennel, the Township may require the owner thereof to produce evidence satisfactory to it that the kennel is being or shall be operated, as the case may be, within acceptable health standards.
DOG LICENSING AND LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT 123 3

4. (a) No person shall allow a dog to run at large in the Township of Mariposa.--MUNICIPAL ACT SEC. 210 6 (f)

(b) Any dog running at large contrary to the provisions of this By-Law may be seized, inpounded, killed or otherwise disposed of by such person as may be duly authorized to so do as hereinafter provided, namely,
i) it shall be the duty of the "Dog Control Officer" to capture any dog running at large contrary to the provisions of this By-Law and to impound or destroy such dog. DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT CHAPTER 123 SEC 9
ii) the "owner" of any dog or dogs so seized or impounded and which bear a dog tag for the current year, may be permitted to redeem the dog or dogs within four days from the time of notice of seizure by paying to the Clerk of the Township the sum as provided in the schedule of fees. Schedul e B.

(c) All dogs impounded under the provisions of this By-Law and which are not redeemed within four days from notice of such impounding may be sold or destroyed.

(d) Any person shall be entitled to take charge of any dog found running at large but shall forthwith deliver the dog to an "Dog Control Officer", unharmed only.

(e) For the purpose of this section, notice may be given verbally by the "Dog Control Officer" to the "owner' or "owners" in question.

5. (a) Where a dog running "at large" appears to be of a vicious nature or has caused damage to property, any person authorized to seize a dog running "at large" contrary to provisions of this By-Law, may immediately kill such dog.

(b) No damage or compensation shall be recovered or recoverable on account of the disposition or destruction of any dog persuant to this By-Law or any Act of the Legislation.

[LavenderRott]

6. Every "owner" of a dog shall have the dog innoculated with a rabies vaccine at least once every twelve (12) months, and shall produce evidence of such innoculation to any "Dog Control Officer" on demand, or such innoculations will be deemed non existent.

7. No "owner" shall allow his dog or dogs to become a nuisance by howling or barking excessively. Any person so aggrieved by the howling or barking of a dog or dogs may appear before a Justice of the Peace and swear an information charging the Owner with a breach of this Section. Municipal Act 210/132

8. Any person who owns or harbours a dog shall remove forthwith excrement left by the dog anywhere in the Township.

9. (a) No person may own any dog for the purpose of fighting, or train, torment, badger, bait or use any dog for the purpose of causing or encouraging that dog to engage in unprovoked attacks upon human beings or domestic animals, nor may any person participate in, promote, or allow property the person owns to be used for dog fighting. Fines for infractions of this clause will be from $500.00 to $2000.00 and be decided by the Courts.

(b) Any person found guilty of deliberately teasing a dog and causing aggressive, anti-social behaviour in the dog without the owner's knowledgee and consent will be fined $50.00 for the first offence and $75.00 for the second offence. In the case of minors the fine will be the responsibility of the parent or guardian. This penalty will be levied against any individual deliberately harrassing by gesture, physical abuse, voice, or by any other means which results in anti-social behaviour of any dog without the "owners" consent.

10. No person may posses with intent to sell, or offer for sale, breed or buy or attempt to buy within the limits of the Township of Mariposa, any dog determined to be "vicious" under definition of clause p) (1) and p) (2), of this By-Law and determined by a "hearing" or by the Court.

11. In the event that the "Dog Control Officer" has probable cause to believe that a dog is vicious, he/she may convene a "hearing" to determine whether the dog in question should be declared "vicious". The "Dog Control Officer" shall notify the owner that a "hearing" will be held, at which time the owner of the dog may present evidence why the dog should not be declared "vicious". The "hearing" shall be held between five and ten days after the "owner" is given notice. MUNICIPAL ACT SEC 210 (1)

12. After the "hearing" the "owner" of the dog and the "Dog Control Officer" shall be notified in writing of the determination of the "panel". If the determination is made that the dog is "vicious" the "owner" shall comply with the provisions of the By-Law in accordance with a schedule established by the "Dog Control Officer", but in no case more than thirty days subsequent to the date of the determination. If the "owner" contests the determination, the "owner" may, within five days of such determination bring a petition in the County Court, requesting that the court conduct it's own hearing on whether the dog should be declared "vicious". After service of notice to the "Dog Control Officer", the court shall conduct a hearing De novo and make its own determination. If the court rules the dog to be "vicious" the court may establish a schedule to ensure compliance with this By-Law, But in no case more than thirty days subsequent to the Court's determination. The court may decide all issues for or against the "owner" of the dog whether or not the "owner" appears at the "hearing". MUNICIPAL ACT SEC 210 (1) ???

[LavenderRott]

13. In the event that the "Dog Control Officer" has probable cause to believe that the dog in question is vicious and may pose a threat or serious harm to persons or other domestic animals, then the "Dog Control Officer" may sieze and impound the dog pending the aforesaid "hearing". Subject to the approval of the "Dog Control Officer" the dog may be impounded in a facility agreeable to the "owner". If the dog is found to be "vicious" the "owner" of the said dog shall be liable to the "Township" wherein the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping the dog.
The "Dog Control Officer" may establish a schedule of payment of these costs. The "owner" shall incur the expense of impounding the dog in a facility other than the "Township" pound whether the dog is found "vicious" or not.

14. Any dog shall be deemed "potentially dangerous" if it without provocation kills, wounds, or assists in killing or wounding any domestic animal or any wildlife while off the property of the "owner". The "owner" of the dog shall be held responsible and shall be held in noncompliance with this By-Law and fined $100.00 and shall reimburse the owner of the animal attacked for replacement of the attacked animal and/or veterinary expenses. In addition the "Dog Control Officer" is empowered to immediately sieze and impound (if the "owner" is not present) the dog and after expiration of ten days waiting period following the impoundment, to humanely euthanize the "potentially dangerous" dog.

15. Any dog that without provocation (with consideration to clause n)(1),(2),and (3)) and while "at large" approaches a person or animal under control of a person (leashed) in an obviously and distinctly threatening manner shall be deemed "potentially dangerous". The "owner" of the "potentially dangerous" dog shall be liable for a fine of $50.00 for the first offence and $100.00 for subsequent offences of the above nature.

16.a) Any "abused" dog shall be deemed "potentially dangerous". The "owner" of an "abused" dog who has allowed, aided in or has been the cause of the dog's becoming "abused" will be fined a minimum of $100.00 to a maximum of $1000.00 and be restricted from owning a dog for from a minimun of two years to a maximum of total restriction of ownership of a dog within the limits of the Township of Mariposa for as long as the individual resides in the "Township". The "Dog Control Officer" is empowered to immediately sieze and impound the dog if in his opinion it is deemed necessary.

b) Upon confirmation of the guilt of the "owner" either by acceptance of the opinion of the "Dog Control Officer" or by "hearing", the dog may be resold, handed over to the local Humane Society, placed in a home acceptable to the "Dog Control Officer", or humanely euthanized. If it is decided that the dog is not "abused" then the dog will be returned to it's "owner" with a warning and a clarification of the "Township" By-Law recited to the "owner".

c) In the case that the animal is relocated to a new home, the status of the dog at the discretion of the "Dog Control Officer" and not withstanding clause n)2) may be re evaluated from "potentially dangerous" to "nuisance" dog.



17. The "owners" of dogs deemed to be "potentially dangerous" by the "Dog Control Officer" may request a "hearing" to establish the status of the dog. The decision of the "hearing" will be binding. The "owner" of the dog will give to the "Township" a deposit of $50.00 in the instance that he/she desires a "hearing" to determine the status of the "potentially dangerous" dog. The deposit will be refunded if the "panel" at the "hearing" find infavor of the "owner". The request for a "hearing" must be made within two working days of the original decision of the "Dog Control Officer". The "hearing" shall be conducted in from five to ten days after the date of the request.

18.a) All dogs designated to be "potentially dangerous" shall be required to be kept in the residence of the "owner" or in an "enclosure" when the "owner" of the "potentially dangerous" dog is not at the residence where the said dog is being kept. Any dog designated as being "potentially dangerous" will not be allowed off leash within the "Township" limits unless within an adequately fenced portion of the "owner's" property or on property adequately fenced belonging to a consenting individual. DOG OWNERS LIABILITY ACT---[65040, 65050]

b) If the "owner" of a determined "potentially dangerous" dog fails to either provide proof or assurance satisfactory to the "Dog Control Officer" that the dog will now be confined and restrained in compliance with the provisions of this By-Law, or fails to claim the dog from the Pound chosen by the "Township", if it has been previously impounded, and if the dog cannot be adopted by someone providing assurance that it will be kept confined and restrained as specified in this By-Law then the dog may be humanely euthanized after ten days.

c) Any person/"owner" violating the terms of the clause shall be punished upon first offence by a fine of $100.00. The fine will be subsequently increased by $100.00 for each repeat offence a maximum of $500.00 and withdrawl of the "owner's" licence to own a dog for two years.

[LavenderRott]

19. a) Any dog that without provocation, considering clauses n)1),2),3), causes injury by biting or by serious attack to a human being shall be subject to the procedures in clauses 11 and 12, declared vicious.

b) Upon such an attack or assault the "Dog Control Officer" is empowered to sieze and impound the alledged "vicious" dog if the conduct ot the "owner" or the dog cause in his opinion the necessity of the action to protect the public.

c) The "owner" may designate a consenting kennel or veterinary clinic as an alternative to "Township" facilities for confinement. All kenneling in facilities other than that of the "Township" will be payable by the "owner" of the dog.

20.a) A dog causing undue public concern for safety by lunging fiercely and forcefully against a fenced enclosure within which is kept shall be investigated and dealt with by the "Dog Control Officer".





b) Complaints arising from such a situation will give the "Dog Control Officer" the right to inspect the premises in which the dog is kept. If there is boubt in the mind of the "Dog Control Officer" that the dog is not securely confined then he may require the "owner" to either reinforce the perimeter fence or construct the perimeter fence of a material thru which the dog cannot see. The "owner" may construct an adequate kennel run with proper shelter from the elements and the dog will be required to be confined when the owner is not home or cannot supervise his/her dog.

21. Dogs kept as compound dogs to gaurd property in the absence of any resposible handler or "owner";

a) The "owner" or individual hiring the services of such a dog will pay a licence fee of $100.00 per year, per dog.

b) The fenced perimeter of the area in which the dog or dogs serve as compound guard dogs will be inspected by the "Dog Control Officer" and must pass his inspection before and guard dog may be turned loose unsupervised.

c) In the event that a dog escapes from the enclosure the individual hiring the services of the dog will be liable to a fine of from $50.00 to $500.00

d) The fine will be levied by the "By-Law Enforcement Officer".

e) In the event that the services of such a dog are required for less than one year then the licence will be issued for the partial estimated year always as long or longer than required never less.

22. In the case that a dog declared "vicious" is not euthanized:
If it is concluded that the dog declared "vicious" can be retrained and socialized and that the bite or injury from the attack was the result of improper or negligent training, handling or maintenance, the dog licence to the "owner" shall be reissued with conditions and restrictions imposed for the training, socialization, handling and maintenance of the dog to protect the public. It must be properly concluded that the "owner" is able and willing to properly carry out these restrictions and conditions and that a similar incident is not likely to occur in the future. Prior to the reissuance of a permanent licence, the "owner" of the dog shall show proof that he/she and the dog have succeessfully completed a training course and show proof of an "enclosure" where the "vicious" dog must be kept is outside the residence when the "owner" or custodian is not physically present with the dog when the dog is on the "owner's" property.

[LavenderRott]

Non compliance will result in a fine of $200.00 and repeated infractions will result in impoundment of the dog, euthanization of the dog, and the revoking of the "owner's" right to acquire a dog licence for from two years to a permanent ban. The "Dog Control Officer" will proved the owner a temporary signed approval of custody while the owner and dog are completing required conditions. DOG OWNERS LIABILITY ACT [65040], 2(b) PENALTY [65050] (4) $5000.00

23. Identification of a "vicious" dog:
Any dog determined to be "vicious" and not euthanized will be required to be tattooed by a qualified veterinarian at the "owner's" expense, with a distinctive number (so as not to be confused with other I.D. tattoos) in the right ear.
A new licence will be issued to the "owner" and it will display this distinctive tattoo number. The "Township" will keep a list of all such licences for easy referencing.
Any person whose dog has been determined to be "vicious" and whose right to obtain a licence has been revoked by the "panel" shall not own, possess, control, or be in charge of a dog for a period of from three years to a perminent ban dependent upon the recommendations of the "panel". MUNICIPAL ACT SEC.210 4(a) REFERED TO BY 4(d)

24. In the event that a human death is the direct result of an attack by a dog or dogs, or in the case that very severe injuries are sustained, the "Dog Control Officer" will recommend that the "owner" be charged with criminal responsibilty and that the case be dealt with in a criminal court of law.

25. None of the "panel" or the "Township" or their staff in animal control or the elected officials, may be held resposible if a dog determined to be "potentially dangerous" or "vicious" should at a later date cause and injury to a human or to a dometicated animal either because of escape from and "enclosure" or in any other circumstances. The "owner" of said dog must be held responsible for the actions of his/her dog.

26. In the event that any Court should determine that any section of this By-Law is invalid or ultra vires, such section, if the context permits shall be severable and the remainder of the By-Law shall continue in full force and effect.

27. By-law No. 89-55 of the Township and any amending By-law or By-Laws are hereby rescinded.

[LavenderRott]

THERE IS A GOOD VISCIOUS DOG LAW.

A law where ALL dogs and ALL dog owners are treated EQUALLY under the law.

You know, I really don't mind a good debate until people start calling people names.

The most famous pair of Search and Rescue dogs in the United States are a pair of Pit Bulls. If my child was missing, those are the dogs I would want looking for him. Rottweilers are also used in Search and Rescue work all across North America. There were a couple in New York when the Twin Towers fell. It sure would be horrid if these fine examples of their breed where punished because some drug dealer wanted the biggest meanest dog they could find to guard their drugs.

I find it very sad when people are presented with the facts and still can be so blind. And yes, these facts and so many more that I haven't posted have been given to Mr. Bryant. I doubt that he has even bothered to read them or talk to anyone who has a differing opinion. That would not fit into his master scheme.

[heeler's rock!]

I agree LR. Calling people names is not neccessary, and I do appologize to those, other than BTPB, that were offended by my last few posts. I controlled my emotions better on my last post as I have decided to be the bigger person and not let BTPB get to me. I just get very emotional when we are talking about thousands of innocent pits being put to sleep or homeless because of a lack of understanding on both the media and the government. There is only so much support behind BSL because of a few misinformed individuals, that then spread that misinformation to the masses.

[Spurby]

Originally Posted by BANTHEPITBULL

What a proposed pitbull ban/dangerous dog legislation in Ontario should do:

-> Outright ban on all *new* pitbull and rott puppies/breeding/sale/purchase.

-> Ban pitbulls/rotts from densely populated areas.

-> Equate crime of the dog as being a crime of the owner and deal accordingly, levying massive fines and imprisonment.

-> Deal with existing pitbull/rott population. This is the most contentious issue,
---> Euthanise those currently in shelters. Do not promote further adoption.
---> For those people who currently own pitbulls/rotts and are obviously deeply attached to their dogs, a delicate approach is needed...which both prevents another pitbull/rott bite but also takes into consideration the fact that these dogs are probably family members now, and you just can't take them away for euthanization.
On this point, I am not sure what will work, but muzzling and short leashes aren't likely to be much effective. A combination of things are probably required, including substantial liability coverage requirements.


What could be the results of such a ban :

-> Gradually eliminate pitbull and rott population in Ontario. It took Britain 10-15 years to do that.

-> Pitbull attacks would and should be eliminated. Keeps the govt and the vast majority of the public happy and safe (atleast from pitbulls). Mission accomplished for the McGuinty government. If pitbull attacks still continue after such a law takes effect, the govt would be pushed to ban all pitbulls in sight (euthanize them 'all).

-> A lot of pitbulls would be saved from a lot of agony, especially those in rescue situations/shelters. Pitbull is also probably the most abused breed.

From what I understand, most people get pitbulls/rotts precisely because they are amongst the most powerful and aggressive dogs available; though some get them from shelters,etc...which isn't really a bad thing.

However, I am yet to come across a single responsible pitbull owner.

So now you have added Rottweilers to your ideal ban? how nice. Better keep that list handy, because other breeds will surely be added if BSL passes.

Your last sentence says it all, your complete and utter ignorance to the American pit bull terrier. You have never even met one, one of the many of thousands owned and loved by RESPONSIBLE people, yet, you want them all killed because of your fear of something you do not know, nor understand, or even met.

Let me guess, your research on the breed/BSL is googled and through biased media reports? Huh, nice work. Sad to see it, but i have come to the understanding that many people in life will remain happliy ignorant to various things, hey, as long as you "feel" safe from the big bad pit bull, thats all that matters, right? I am sure you will sleep soundly at night, knowing if BSL is passed, Ontario is saved.

Tell me, what would you say to the child who's face just received 100 stitches from a Lab? or Dalmation? Or Mutt? Why didn't the BSL save them??? I'll give you an answer, they were too busy saving us by killing all the pit bulls, spending and wasting money by doing so, and not spending the time and energy where it is needed, enforcing exsisting by-laws, and creating tough new ones. Too bad for the future kids/people that will get attacked by other breeds, no one cares about them if it wasn't a pit bull

[moontamara]

Dinah, I don't think anyone's worried about whether or not you've offended BTPB -- it's how this forum is going to look to anyone browsing through it, and the fact that it degrades your side of the argument. I understand that it a very emotional issue for you guys (I'm kind of outside of it here in Korea), so perhaps it's harder than it sounds. I do understand your point of view, and I want others to understand it too. If someone called me a moron there is absolutely NO WAY I would consider anything they had to tell me from that point on.

[moontamara]

Originally Posted by Dinah

moontamara, others have posted facts and statistics about pitbulls without insulting BTPB and he/she has ignored it all anyway. Why? Because people like BTPB ARE morons, plain and simple.

Yeah, I know you're right. BTPB didn't come here with even a remotely open mind. But what if someone is just reading through this discussion without having made up his/her mind? That's all I'm saying.

But since I'm not emotionally involved, perhaps it isn't my business to comment at all. I'm sure if poodles were about to be banned and it would affect me and my little guy, I'd probably be name calling too!