New sub forum - Breed bans - BSL - Pit Bull banning

[marko]

Due to the fact that so many members are passionate about this issue, we decided it deserved its own sub-forum located in the Breed Discussion and information forum.

Please post anything connected to this issue in this new sub forum called
Breed bans - BSL - Pit Bull bans

Thanks to all who suggested it.

As with all forums on Pets.ca, there is no promotion allowed.
If you want to post a fundraising event or anything along those lines please ask the ADMIN FIRST.

Marko

[LavenderRott]

Thanks Marko!

[Dukieboy]

That said, it was a compelling debate. I heard from all sides. I met with municipal authorities, police officers, animal experts, groups like the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I met with national coalitions representing humane societies, veterinarians and animal control experts. I met with victims and with citizens, those great non-experts who are all experts about dogs. We've heard first-hand the accounts of many victims and the suffering experienced by their families.

I want to acknowledge and thank some people who courageously came here to Queen's Park, who have been waiting, for a long time in some cases, for this ban to be put in place, if this should pass: Darlene Wagner, Angela Joyce, Karl Vaartjes, Steven and his daughter Lindsay Grandy, Louise Ellis and her daughter Lauren, Maria De Zorzi, Diana Fischer and George Gooderham; as well, sitting in the gallery is Councillor Berry Vrbanovic, who has been a real leader in this. Thank you to all of you for coming here today.

So we've heard from the victims, we've heard from those who were opposed to pit bull bans and we've heard from the people of Ontario. This debate comes to this House as this province considers whether it will be the first to ban pit bulls, in Ontario. I would say to all honourable members in this House that I don't think any of us want to open our morning paper and see yet another picture of a young child who has been harmed, a pet who has been harmed, resulting in a pit bull being put down. We've seen enough, and enough is enough. It's time for action.

The Speaker: Response?

1400

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I wish to express, from our party, our sympathy to the victims of dog attacks, and share the desire to stop attacks in future, but we have concerns about how the Attorney General went about developing this piece of legislation.

My office has received dozens of e-mails, and almost everyone agrees that action must be taken to prevent innocent people from being attacked by dogs. Everyone is asking, what constitutes a pit bull? Experts say that the pit bull is really a breed unto itself, but refer to a number of breeds, crossbreeds, hybrids, etc.

For the purpose of enforcing this politically charged ban, how does one determine what is a pit bull? Who will be responsible for making the determination and will it stand up in court? There are people who suggest the government is taking this strong stand on pit bulls not because it feels the law will be enforceable, but because it will convince people it is taking action on a serious problem. Many pit bulls, or for that matter dogs in general, are not registered, especially in rural areas. When someone sees an unleashed dog, they might think, is it a pit bull? Who do they call? Assuming someone catches the dog, what happens next?

Many municipalities in Ontario do not have facilities to detain stray animals. Some have financial arrangements with the SPCA shelters, run principally by volunteer organizations, but these groups often operate on shoestring budgets and can't be expected to take on the responsibility of dealing with a huge influx of what your government refers to as dangerous animals. Minister, you'll have to explain to us how this ban you propose will be effective and enforceable to protect the public.

Early this morning in Toronto a 28-year-old man is recuperating from serious injuries to his hand and arm after being attacked by a dog. While police are still investigating, this report appears to support your call for a ban on pit bulls. Well, not quite. The dog involved was not a pit bull; it was a Rottweiler.

Pet owners and animal experts believe a ban on pit bulls will be just the start, that more breeds will be added as other dog attacks are reported. Over time, you might be able to include every breed in the ban. Banning the pit bull breed will not protect the public from other aggressive breeds such as Rottweilers and Dobermans. My own experience is of having being bitten by a dog in the hand as a young child, by a German shepherd. Are we going to ban that dog also? What will be the criteria in the future for banning other breeds?

In Italy, they have banned in excess of 90 breeds, and it has not solved the problem of dangerous dogs. The Attorney General says this comprehensive approach of a provincial ban will avoid a patchwork of bans by municipalities. Municipalities, I would argue, are capable of determining their community's safety, and were acting; for example, the city of Windsor. What municipalities need are the tools to do the job. Muzzling and leashing pit bulls or other dangerous dogs in public is warranted, but will not protect victims from dogs that bolt from their owner's house or property and attack a human being or other creature. Police will not charge criminally unless it be proven that the dog owner was negligent.

An example is that no charges were laid by the OPP in a recent pit bull attack where the dog bolted from a house, killing a small dog, because they could not prove owner's negligence. The Dog Owners' Liability Act does not impose strict liability offences on a dog owner whose dog bites, attacks or poses a threat to public safety. There is always the defence of due diligence, so heavier fines and jailing of dog owners are meaningless tools to protect the public if a dog owner cannot be held accountable under the law for their dog's actions.

I would say to the Attorney General that this is another example of your seat-of-the-pants approach to government. This is ill thought out, you didn't consult and you don't know how it will be policed or what it will cost. Admit it, Minister: this is a public relations show designed to give people the impression that you are doing something and to get your mug on TV.

I will say this to you, Mr Attorney General: This bill should go to committee. You should face the public in terms of what you are trying to do. Make sure that it's enforceable and that you're accountable to the public. The people in this audience here today deserve to know that this is not a sham, that they will be protected.

We have sympathy for anyone who has been bitten by a dog. We want to make sure they are protected by the law. We don't want this to be no more than the public relations exercise it already is. Do the job, Minister: Respect the public and protect them.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to offer the government that we in the official opposition would certainly be prepared to give unanimous consent to waive the printing of this bill and to begin debating it this afternoon, if you'd like.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? I don't think there's unanimous consent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, government House leader. Unanimous consent means all, and I heard a no. Response from the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This bill purports to address what we all acknowledge as a very serious problem, a problem that has taken its toll of victims, not only across Ontario but throughout North America. I have no hesitation in acknowledging that. Our exposure to this is primarily anecdotal and I think it's fair to say that the information we receive through the news media is perhaps but the tip of the iceberg. I say to this government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'll give you your time. I'm just going to say that when the Attorney General was reading his statement, it was quiet, people were polite and they were listening. Now the response from the member for Niagara Centre is not receiving the same courtesy. I ask the member from Niagara Centre to respond.

Mr Kormos: This is a serious problem that warrants serious consideration in a disciplined way in the context of this chamber and the rules and procedure of this chamber. It's far too important a matter for anybody to attempt to short-circuit the process. It's far too important a matter to folks across this province, to ensure that there is a full debate, that there is a thorough and intelligent consideration of all the data and evidence.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the people who advocate this bill as it stands now, and I would ask them not to doubt the sincerity of those who want to ensure that whatever legislation is eventually passed in this province is the most effective law, with enforceability and the capacity to have a meaningful impact on vicious dogs and attacks by vicious dogs, be they pit bulls or be they others.

I tell you, there has been serious conflict and contradictory statements made about who has and who hasn't been consulted. I'm not in a position -- nor would I want to at this point -- to identify any of the parties as being anything less than truthful from their particular perspective. But I'm concerned about the letter that appeared in this morning's Toronto Star from the president of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, one Tim Zaharchuk, who says that organization wasn't consulted.

I'm concerned there's a suggestion -- a number of columnists and journalists have been cited -- that for as many as there are who support the ban being proposed and the manner it's being proposed, there are an equal number of observers and journalists who express concerns. I'm concerned about the observation that the US Centers for Disease Control has not been adequately consulted. I'm concerned about the observation that the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has not been consulted, that the Canada Safety Council has not been effectively consulted. The people of this province deserve to hear from those parties, deserve to know what the data are, so that we as legislators can develop the best possible legislative response to, I repeat, this most serious problem.

1410

We believe as well that this matter should go to public hearings. There ought to be public committee hearings so that all parties can express their views, so that there could be a public airing of the data and the evidence and so that there can be a legitimate consideration of the effect of breed-specific bans in other jurisdictions.

I'm concerned about the conflicting reports about the effectiveness of the breed-specific bans in the United Kingdom. I'm concerned about the conflicting reports coming about places like Cincinnati or Denver, where there is some suggestion that breed bans were attempted, failed and then abandoned; if they have been, we want to understand why. If there are better ways to approach this than the manner in which this legislation does it, then we're prepared to work together to ensure that that better way is implemented.

We're concerned about municipalities and their ability to enforce this legislation. It's quite clear this is legislation that has to be enforced at the municipal level. Down where I come from, and in fact across this province, municipalities are hard-pressed to keep animal control officers on duty any more than five days a week, eight hours a day. To have a breed ban or a vicious dog ban in general is meaningless unless you've got people out there prepared to do the hard, nasty and dirty work in terms of picking up this breed.

Also, the bill clearly provides for at least one more decade of so-called pit bulls in Ontario. We're talking about the so-called grandparenting. I understand why the government would want to include that in their legislation, but I very much want to understand how that jibes with their expression of such serious concern with this one specific breed.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the spirit of co-operation that has been offered, I seek unanimous consent to put a motion, without further debate, that when this bill is called, any time this bill is called, no party can put a motion to adjourn the House or adjourn the debate without unanimous consent.

The Speaker: The government House leader put a motion forward to have unanimous consent. Do I hear unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): You're an idiot.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member from Toronto-Danforth has used unparliamentary language. Would you stand and withdraw.

Ms Churley: I withdraw, Speaker.

[Dukieboy]

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED TO DOGS
STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /
LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SÉCURITÉ
PUBLIQUE RELATIVE AUX CHIENS

Mr Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 132, An Act to amend the Dog Owners' Liability Act to increase public safety in relation to dogs, including pit bulls, and to make related amendments to the Animals for Research Act / Projet de loi 132, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la responsabilité des propriétaires de chiens pour accroître la sécurité publique relativement aux chiens, y compris les pit-bulls, et apportant des modifications connexes à la Loi sur les animaux destinés à la recherche.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Minister?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'll make comments during ministers' statements, Mr Speaker.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
AND RESPONSES

PIT BULLS /
LE PIT-BULL

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I rise today to introduce legislation that, if passed, would ban pit bulls in the province of Ontario.

This action responds to the growing alarm of Ontarians over the aggressiveness and danger of these dogs; the danger that these dogs pose to public safety; the danger that these dogs pose to other animals; and the imperilling of the safety of our streets, our parks and our communities.

This is real; it is not just fear. It is fear based upon real harm caused by pit bulls against animals and victims.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Bryant: I hear from the opposition something about fearmongering. I'd like him to say that to some of the victims who are in the gallery here today who have been attacked by pit bulls. This is real, and we are going to protect Ontarians in the province of Ontario.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I just ask that the members in the gallery please do not applaud.

Hon Mr Bryant: Pit bulls have been responsible for some horribly vicious attacks on Ontarians. Since August, barely a week goes by where there's not another pit bull attack reported in the media, and my experience has been that there are many, many incidents that simply go unreported: a child playing, a man going out for an evening stroll, an infant being pushed along in a stroller, a family enjoying some peace and quiet in their backyard -- all of these circumstances and more -- a woman delivering mail to a house. It goes on and on, and we see the incidents and we see the damage done and we see the fear that it causes and we see that people don't go to certain areas or parks and streets because of this.

This government is saying enough is enough. It's time that we make amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act that make our streets safer. Ontario breeders would not be allowed to breed them. Future purchase and imports of pit bulls would be banned if this bill passes. There will be strict new requirements for people already owning pit bulls, though they won't be new for the responsible dog owner, because a responsible dog owner is already leashing and muzzling their pit bull. We are just requiring that all dog owners of pit bulls act responsibly.

Let me be clear, and this is important: Those who currently own pit bulls will, of course, be able to keep their dogs. We have said that all along. Under the regulations, each existing pit bull would also have to be leashed and muzzled when in public. The pit bull would also have to be neutered or spayed. Municipalities will be able to prescribe additional requirements in their own bylaws to reflect citizen concerns.

Our government recognizes that most dog owners are very responsible. Unfortunately, there are irresponsible dog owners in this province as well. This proposed legislation would forestall potential attacks by prosecuting owners of any dogs -- any dogs -- that pose a menace to society. An owner of any dangerous dog that bites, attacks or otherwise poses a menace to public safety could be subject to fines of up to $10,000, and for the first time, a jail term of up to six months. The legislation would also allow fines up to a maximum of $60,000 for corporations who own such dogs. The court would also be able to order the owner to pay restitution to the victim.

Notre gouvernement est résolu à édifier, dans tout l'Ontario, des collectivités fortes, à l'abri du danger. L'interdiction des pit-bulls répond justement à un besoin urgent de sécurité publique. Si cette loi était adoptée, les pit-bulls seraient bannis en Ontario.

We've seen positive results from similar bans in other jurisdictions. The most relevant and telling is the Canadian experience: 14 years ago, Winnipeg became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. Winnipeg was experiencing over 30 serious reported pit bull attacks a year; today, zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks a year, and in a few short years since the ban came in, thanks to the leadership of their mayor and to Councillor Berry Vrbanovic, who is in the gallery today, they now have about one pit bull attack a year in Kitchener.

This means that people in those cities who otherwise would be subject to the repeated attacks of pit bulls are instead spared serious injury, and the same goes for their pets. Even more interestingly, dog bites in Winnipeg went down over the course of the pit bull ban, refuting the hypothesis that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by banned pit bulls.

In Ontario, in addition to Kitchener-Waterloo, Windsor has a ban in place, and Brantford is moving toward one after its city council voted to ban pit bulls. Toronto is re-examining the issue following a recent and particularly horrifying attack, as are other municipalities.

I've heard from municipal leaders from Windsor to Wawa, all asking for the provincial government to show leadership on this public safety issue, and your government is answering that call today. I'm thinking of people like Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr, who said, "Every Ontarian in every city across Ontario deserves the same level of safety that we have in Kitchener. That's what this legislation would do."

Toronto Mayor David Miller has said that he supports the province's swift action. He said, "This problem is not exclusive to any single municipality; it is a province-wide issue and therefore the best solution is a province-wide strategy to keep Ontarians safe from dangerous dogs."

Mayor Rod Morrison from Wawa has said, "Protecting the public from the menace of pit bulls and toughening up on owners of dangerous dogs that attack is in the best interest of all people in every town, city and community across Ontario."

Chief Fantino has said, "This proposed ban will help my officers and police services across Ontario keep our community safe from dangerous dogs."

Ontario municipalities are speaking out. They're saying they don't want a patchwork of pit bull bans across Ontario. They need province-wide leadership so there is not one level of public safety in one area and one level of public safety in another. Instead, what we need to have across the province is the kind of safety these mayors and leaders have shown and that this government is attempting here in this Legislature today.

There is support across the province. It's not unanimous support, but let's hear about some of it. This is from the Hamilton Spectator: "The broader public interest is well served by the proposed ban." The London Free Press said, "We've seen enough," and it's time for a ban on pit bulls. The Toronto Star said it's time to ban pit bulls. Jim Coyle wrote, "Amen to the ban on pit bulls." Toronto Sun columnist Bob MacDonald said it's "doing the right thing to ban pit bulls in Ontario." The Globe and Mail said, "...implementing the ban will be difficult. Public safety is worth the effort. It's a move long overdue." The National Post said the "suggested ban should be enacted."

With this legislation, our government would set the province-wide standard and eliminate the need for a patchwork of municipal bans. We would be the first province or state across the continent to put this ban in place. I believe we are showing leadership here, and it is to the safety of all Ontarians. While municipalities would maintain principal authority for dog control, as they do, the province will ensure that all Ontarians will receive uniform protection. This will protect municipal authorities while protecting Ontarians. I thank municipal leaders for their support.

We are continuing discussions with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and with the city of Toronto to ensure that working together will make the proposed ban work effectively for all.

The reaction to this debate has been overwhelming. I've received more than 5,000 -- almost 6,000 -- e-mails and letters about pit bulls. The message is clear: A majority clearly support pit bull bans. Hearing from the public was a really powerful and influential factor in the decision to ban pit bulls. Clearly, there are many unreported pit bull incidents, and clearly, there is not just fear over it, but justified fear. There is a great silent majority that is being heard on this issue and their government is listening.

[LavenderRott]

It seems to me like Canada is fast becoming a communist country!

According to the new bill, a police officer can come into your home and "by whatever means necessary" remove your dog if they have reports that your dog is menacing. Or if they think your dog is menacing. Breed here doesn't matter and there is no court involved.

So you better hope that you don't live next to someone who hates all dogs. I wonder if this means that if you strongly object to someone removing your dog they can shoot it in your living room? That is sure what is sounds like.

Sounds to me like Canadians are fast loosing their rights to such simple things as due process. If police officers can come into your home with no warrant because of your dog, why do they need a warrant if they think you are actually commiting a crime?

[Pack Mom]

The NCCPD has created a brief online survey regarding Bill 132. If
you would like to register your opinion, please go to
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=27938736749. Anyone wishing to track the results of the NCCPD Survey on Bill 132
can log on to http://www.surveymonkey.com/Report.asp?U=73674921851.

NCCPD has also created a sample letter to Dalton McGuinty. If anyone would like a copy, let me know and I will post it.

Happy New Year everyone. Let's hope it is one without BSL

[hennessey]

I personally own 2 pits and know they can be aggressive dogs. I was bit one week ago by a dog i'd been around for years. Everybody always singles out the pits, but u never hear about any other dog attacks. Any dog can be aggressive, it all depends on how the dogs are raised. I know of a little fiest that will attack you faster than a pitt. My pits love kids, never harmed anybody, and are very gentle. If people would keep their dogs chained or pinned up they would not have to worry about any dog attacking anybody.

[Prin]

What? I'm confused. You love your dogs and you think chaining them up is a solution to dog attacks? What's the point of having a dog if it's going to spend its life chained up? How will they socialize if their tied up all the time?

[Beigh]

I have seen this ban bull**** debated so many times now that its beginning to make me a little ill. How can anyone out there claim that one breed should be banned due to some poor media coverage on the breed where the news paints the breed as monsters.

Every dog owner knows that every breed has had examples of attacks and just the larger breeds seem to end up on the news or in the papers. When was the last time anyone here about a Pom that attack someone? As some one who has had them in the past they are alot more agressive than some of the large dogs that I've had and they bite just as hard if not worst due to they usually bite like 5-6 times more than larger dogs.

Our government need to stop putting bans on breeds and start regulating who can have a dog with restrictions and stricter fines and possible jail time is an owner allows they dog to be placed in a position where they can be a danger to someone.

[Luvmypit]

Thanks Beigh. I ofcourse agree.

[Bucketz]

MIDDLETOWN CITY COUNCIL

Pit bulls no longer banned from city
Amended ordinance prohibits chaining animals.
Click-2-Listen
By Ed Richter

Staff Writer

Thursday, March 08, 2007

MIDDLETOWN — An amended dog ordinance bans chaining animals and beefs up penalties for irresponsible pet owners.

Middletown City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved the amended ordinance that also eliminated breed-specific designation of pit bulls as vicious dogs.

Extras
Latest headlines
Bluffton baseball player dies a week after bus crash that killed 6 others
Fatal bus crash re-enacted
Calls to 911 reveal calm, but surprise at bus wreck reports
Pilot makes emergency landing at Butler County Regional Airport
Votto's homer won't get him to first base
Get latest headlines via RSS feeds
Carol Collier, a resident who spoke in support of the amended ordinance, said she has "Yorkies that are more vicious than pit bulls."

"I believe if you have love for an animal you will not keep it chained," she said. "I believe (dog owners) should be made responsible. Somebody needs to stand up for these animals."

A member of the committee who helped develop the amended ordinance, Leland Gordon, executive director of Animal Friends Humane Society in Trenton, said of pit bulls, "We don't want to judge a book by its cover. If you own a pit bull, please be more responsible."

Gordon also voiced his support for the measure against tethering, saying "it's a terrible life living on a chain."

Last September, several residents questioned the "breed-specific" designation of pit bulls as vicious. Also, an Ohio appellate court declared Toledo's breed-specific law unconstitutional, according to a staff report from city Law Director Les Landen.

A committee was formed consisting of Vice Mayor Anthony "Tony" Marconi, Councilwoman Laura Williams, Animal Control Officer Liz Lucas, Kim Sterling, a former dog warden, Matthew Heller, a local veterinarian, Gordon and Landen, who worked several months to restructure the city's ordinances regarding dogs.

The ordinance was amended to include:

• Increasing the penalties for repeat offenders allowing their dogs to run at large and including spay and neutering for the dogs for repeat offenders.

• Eliminating the breed-specific designation of pit bulls as vicious dogs.

• A definition of dangerous dogs to include an unprovoked attack and injury of another dog.

• Adding provisions to the code to limit and regulate outdoor tethering of dogs.

• Eliminating prohibitions of owning pit bulls in the city.

[Prin]

Woo! Good luck!

[therufflife]

Hello everyone! I am new here! My Name is Monique & this thread has deeply touched me! I used to have a Red Nose Pit. To this day he was the best dog I have EVER worked with. I am a dog trainer, and work with tons of breeds....none have which have compared so far.
My view on this topic is: Bans are only going to stop the people who give Pits (any breed for that matter) a "good" name. The people who for years have only had these dogs as tough, fighting, & mean dogs...and give them a bad name....will always have them. No matter if there is a ban or not.
The problem out there is the LACK OF EDUCATION! for owners, and observers. Here is a great site, most people who acuse "Pit Bulls" of being the aggressor cant pick them out in this line up...can you?
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
This is a great website to send out to all your dog loving friends, see if you can pick out the right dog.

[babyrocky1]

Hi there Therufflife, I think we like you already!

[babyrocky1]

Originally Posted by Bucketz

MIDDLETOWN CITY COUNCIL

Pit bulls no longer banned from city
Amended ordinance prohibits chaining animals.
Click-2-Listen
By Ed Richter

Staff Writer

Thursday, March 08, 2007

MIDDLETOWN — An amended dog ordinance bans chaining animals and beefs up penalties for irresponsible pet owners.

Middletown City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved the amended ordinance that also eliminated breed-specific designation of pit bulls as vicious dogs.

Extras
Latest headlines
Bluffton baseball player dies a week after bus crash that killed 6 others
Fatal bus crash re-enacted
Calls to 911 reveal calm, but surprise at bus wreck reports
Pilot makes emergency landing at Butler County Regional Airport
Votto's homer won't get him to first base
Get latest headlines via RSS feeds
Carol Collier, a resident who spoke in support of the amended ordinance, said she has "Yorkies that are more vicious than pit bulls."

"I believe if you have love for an animal you will not keep it chained," she said. "I believe (dog owners) should be made responsible. Somebody needs to stand up for these animals."

A member of the committee who helped develop the amended ordinance, Leland Gordon, executive director of Animal Friends Humane Society in Trenton, said of pit bulls, "We don't want to judge a book by its cover. If you own a pit bull, please be more responsible."

Gordon also voiced his support for the measure against tethering, saying "it's a terrible life living on a chain."

Last September, several residents questioned the "breed-specific" designation of pit bulls as vicious. Also, an Ohio appellate court declared Toledo's breed-specific law unconstitutional, according to a staff report from city Law Director Les Landen.

A committee was formed consisting of Vice Mayor Anthony "Tony" Marconi, Councilwoman Laura Williams, Animal Control Officer Liz Lucas, Kim Sterling, a former dog warden, Matthew Heller, a local veterinarian, Gordon and Landen, who worked several months to restructure the city's ordinances regarding dogs.

The ordinance was amended to include:

• Increasing the penalties for repeat offenders allowing their dogs to run at large and including spay and neutering for the dogs for repeat offenders.

• Eliminating the breed-specific designation of pit bulls as vicious dogs.

• A definition of dangerous dogs to include an unprovoked attack and injury of another dog.

• Adding provisions to the code to limit and regulate outdoor tethering of dogs.

• Eliminating prohibitions of owning pit bulls in the city.

Where the heck is Middleton, Rocky and I are packing hahahhah! No not really well stay here and fight til we WIN laws like that here!

[jesse's mommy]

Originally Posted by babyrocky1

Where the heck is Middleton, Rocky and I are packing hahahhah! No not really well stay here and fight til we WIN laws like that here!

You're welcome in Florida anytime!

[Dukieboy]

If you can't attend the Board of Health Mtg ( Nov 22, 2004) you can send your letter to:

Board of Health, City of Toronto
Attention Mary Caroll, Committee Administrator
City Clerks Office
City Hall
West Tower
4th Floor
Toronto On
Don't know the postal code

and she will ensure that it gets on the agenda

[Luvmypit]

Why is this in this thread. I didn't even know this was here because its in a thread that is really just to direct us to a new sub forum. Please move atleast the full context of the assembly the other day.