Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Letter to the Editor - Van Courier

I must admit that I was surprised when I read “Lorne again?” by Mike Howell, and learned that counselor Tim Stevenson is running for the NDP party for Vancouver-Burrard. I admit, I have a bit of a grudge against Mr. Stevenson. I was one of the 12 individuals that spoke at a city council meeting, Feb. 17, 2005. The reason why we were there was because of a proposed ban on pit bull type dogs that Mr. Stevenson brought to the table ( a la Ontario‘s Michael Bryant). Considering that the NDP in Ontario were vehemently against a similar ban there, this in itself was surprising. Mr. Stevenson eventually softened his position and by the time a proposal made it’s way to city council, the issue being debated was one of Breed Specific Legislation, just short of an all-out ban. Appeased as I was that Mr. Stevenson had changed his stance on the issue, my dislike of him turned to revulsion when I heard him make a comment to a fellow counselor about a solution to the “pit bull problem” being to remove the dogs’ teeth. Tongue in cheek, maybe. Good for a laugh, perhaps. Not so to the people who fight tirelessly for the welfare of animals particularly those as maligned as the pit bull. Not funny at all to those animal lovers living in Ontario who will soon watch as thousands of dogs, whose only crime is to be block headed and muscular, are destroyed or the less fortunate ones, sent to research facilities. After this incident, Mr. Stevenson was approached about his comment and blatantly denied it. This is enough to make me wonder what else the man is lying about? What other issues will he put on the table without knowing anything at all about the topic at hand? How many people will have to bring their concerns to him in order to be heard or influence his decisions (I saw 12/12 including experts discuss this particular topic, to no avail, Mr. Stevenson will not be swayed on an issue he knows nothing about). I am an NDP supporter and if it weren’t for my belief in the capabilities of Jenny Kwan and Carole James, Mr. Stevenson running for the NDP would be enough to make me vote Green.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

A letter to Malus - December 2, 2004

Dear Malus,
Today is the day of your birth, four years ago. I remember when my first conception of you arrived, how misguided I was. I wanted a dog that would look intimidating but be loving and friendly to his family, friends and neighbors. I wanted you so badly, your dad and I responded to the first “Buy and Sell” ad we saw for “pit bull pups”. I remember when your breeder led us out to the backyard (fittingly enough) where you and your litter mates were in a large crate, scrambling and pawing for our attention. I remember all the pups, some tan and white, some black and white, how would we choose? I knew I wanted a male. I remember the breeders little daughter sneaking out onto the deck and carrying puppies discretely back into the house so we wouldn’t choose that one! I remember your dad picking you up, and saying, “this is the one” because your heart wasn’t beating fast, you weren’t afraid. Little did I know, when we brought you home that first night how much our lives would change. I knew nothing of dog fighters and the so-called “dog men” (read “cowards”) who exploited them, I knew nothing of break sticks and your tenaciousness and drive. I knew nothing of the aversion and scorn we would meet on street corners and even encounter in our own loved family members. I knew nothing certainly of the all out, world wide campaign to eradicate your kind. But I learned quickly. When people would recoil upon learning what your breed was, when newspaper articles about attacks suddenly affected us, when I was first told that I could not leave you tied up outside because someone might steal you and fight you, I learned. You yourself however, were also my teacher. You taught me about humour with your clownish antics, love with your unwavering devotion, trust with your blind obedience (remember the lobster two Christmases ago?) , and of course, perhaps most of all, patience (a heart bigger than his brain). You welcomed our little son into your home with the same good faith and humour. Just like you accept every new person into our home, into our lives, with love and affection. Your spirit is contagious. You taught me finally, how to fight and not to give up. Every letter I write, every email, every poll I respond to, every flyer I had out, every poster I firmly and resolutely replace on those slick lamp posts is in honour of you, and your kind. I will defend in my life, your right to exist in our society, the very same society that exploits, abuses and despises you and others like you, whose only crime has been their breed. I love you Malus. I love you and I appreciate all that you have taught me, all that you continue to teach me. I am thankful for every day that you are there to greet me and love me unconditionally. Happy Birthday. Here’s to many, many more. Love Mommy. (p.s. sorry about your name, “Thomas”!)

Brief Note to Dogs in Canada "Feedback"

As a pit bull owner and individual who has fought hard against the ban in Ontario and breed specific legislation in my own province, I appreciate Capt. Haggerty article. I do however, feel that it is too little too late. Why didn't Dogs in Canada print an article about the issue BEFORE the ban came into effect, with contact information for the Dog Legislation Council of Canada and politicians included? How about links to some of the many petitions that were circulating? It is all well and good for us to complain about it now and I'm sure many readers will be outraged (especially when they discover that it's not just "pit bulls" that are affected) but where were all these dog lovers when the bill was being debated in the legislature? Now all that is left to do is contribute funds to the BannedAid Coalition for the legal fight against the ban. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for not doing more to prevent this tragedy.

To send a similar letter of complaint write to: Dogs in Canada 89 Skyway Ave., Ste. 200, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9W 6R4 (correspondence must be signed) or email: letters@dogsin canada.com fax: (416) 798-9671

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Upcoming BC Election... contact information

There will be an election May 17th. I wanted to provide some contact info here for Canadians to contact some of the major parties to ask them what their stance is on BSL. Even those from Ontario can write to make sure a ban doesn't happen here. I think we need to force them to make a statement on this issue. Thanks!

BC Liberals: contact@bcliberals.com

BC Conservatives: leader@bcconservatives.ca

These ones are easy to fill in:

NDP: contact.bc.ndp.ca/

Green: greenparty.bc.ca/contact/

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Dog Racism

This is a good article. It comes from Tufts Univesity of Veterinary Medicine, March 2005 the author is Sally Deneen:

'Dog Racism Is Rampant'

Legislation around the nation targets specific breeds

It's the law: In Boston, Pit Bull owners must muzzle their dogs inpublic. In Utah's North Salt Lake, muzzles are the rule for certain breeds, as are 6-foot-tall fences and at least $100,000 of liability coverage in case Pit Bulls, Tosas and Sharpeis bite. In Council Bluffs, Iowa, it's now illegal to breed Pit Bulls, a position prompting an upcoming summer trial challenging its constitutionality.And there's more. Proposed legislation in New Jersey would require dog owners statewide to prove their pets aren't Pit Bulls, plus mandate monthly inspections of every Pit Bull's required pen and 6-foot-tall fence. Denver and Florida's MiamiDade county outright ban Pit Bulls. In Show Low, Ariz., some of the country's strictest Pit Bull laws are being considered for passage after 5year-old Annilee McKinnon was fatally attacked by three Pit Bulls last year. "Annilee's Law," among other things, would ban the ownership and sale of Pit Bulls. Any pups born after the law went into effect would need to leave town lor be euthanized.City halls and elected officials around the country increasingly are trying to limit "dangerous breeds" through bans and other breed-specific legislation."Doggie racism is rampant," said said Sally Deneen.Genetics and socialization determine a dog's aggressiveness, though behaviorists say it's impossible to determine the influence of each.Alice Moon-Fanelli, Ph.D, certified applied animal behaviorist and clinical assistant professor at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine. While certain breeds may be treated more frequently for aggression, that doesn't mean all members of the breed are aggressive, she said. "You hear more about large dogs because they cause more serious injury. Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive, but they cause less serious injury."The truth is: Any breed can bite. At least 25 different breeds have killed 238 people in the past two decades - including a Cocker Spaniel, West Highland Terrier, three Collies and five Labrador Retrievers, according to the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (see chart for partial listing of breeds).Experts in animal behavior say the spate of breed legislation, typically targeting Pit Bulls, doesn't solve the problem of dangerous dogs and in fact can lull the public into a false sense of security. A particular dog's deeds - not his breed - should be addressed, say critics, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Kennel Club, National Animal Control Association and humane organizations.Breed-specific laws haven't proven to decrease dog bites. Generic, non-breed-specific, dangerous dog laws that target irresponsible owners are preferable, animal advocates say, as are improved enforcement of existing leash laws and prohibitions on dog fighting.It's a mistake to blame a dog for having an extremely strong prey drive or being especially protective, Dr. Moon-Fanelli said. "There's nothing wrong with those dogs in my opinion. But inexperienced people shouldn't own those kinds of dogs. If you don't know how to train a dog and manage it, you shouldn't have it. The way they've been raised and managed by their owners have put them in a dangerous situation. People are at the root of the problem, not the dogs."Most dog bites are nothing like what you see in TV news reports, said Petra A. Mertens, Dr. med. vet., certified applied animal behaviorist and assistant professor of behavior medicine at the University of Minnesota's College of Veterinary Medicine in St. Paul.Most bites are delivered by the victim's own dog or a friend's dog not "the stray Pit Bull" and usually not breeds targeted by breed-specific legislation, Dr. Mertens said.Most victims are children, especially boys between 5 and 9 years old, and the bites often take place on private property on summer afternoons, she said. Injuries affect their face, head, neck or hands. Adults get bitten more commonly on extremities.Loretta Worters, an insurance industry spokesperson with the Insurance Information Institute, relayed a similar scenario for the typical dog bite but noted that each episode adds up in company expense: Dog bites now account for one quarter of all homeowners' insurance claims. Average cost per claim is almost $17,000; that's to cover medical bills and liability costs. The industry now weathers about $345 million in dog-bite-related claims, which is up from $250 million in 1997, Worters said. "The issue is a major source of concern for insurers. Most bites are delivered by the victim's dog or a friend's dog. In most cases, they're not by breeds, such as Pit Bulls, targeted by legislation.It's also a source of concern for the insured or uninsured, as Lori Buchowicz, who of Forest Park, Ill., learned. She got a surprise when her homeowners' insurance company dropped her as a client - not because of any problem or claim, but because of her dogs. All three oversized lap dogs are known to lick-kiss mail carriers, Buchowicz said, but the insurance company decided it didn't like their breeds: a Pit Bull-Boxer mix, Rottweiler and German Shepherd Dog-Husky mix."It was a shocker," said Buchowicz, who received the bad news early last year. She began calling competitors but quickly saw a pattern. Agent after agent refused her business. Essentially, she was in a bind: Keep her house, or keep her dogs.The Reality of Risk: 16 Fatal Dog Attacks Yearly, 40 Insect StingsYou're more likely to be struck dead by lightning than by a vicious dog. Despite the fear engendered by news reports about Pit Bull maulings, fatal dog attacks on humans are rare - and make news when they occur. For perspective, consider the following causes of death and the number of Americanlives claimed each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and various medical journals:Cigarette Smoking 440,000Influenza/Pneumonia , 65, 700Highway Vehicle Crashes 43,000Deer Collision 100-200With VehiclesLightning Strikes 73-100Insect Stings 40Dog Bites 16Hundreds of dog owners have complained to animal welfare organizations about insurance companies' dropping or refusing insurance for their homes, or charging higher premiums due to their dogs' breeds. To Buchowicz's delight, State Farm - her new company, chosen after she said she called every agent in her Yellow Pages and found only two that welcomed her - does not ban any dog breed. Farmers Insurance also agreed to cover her. Such positions can vary from agent to agent, not just company to company. But State Farm has a companywide position."There are good and bad dogs within every breed. We look at each case on an individualized basis," said State Farm spokesperson Mia Jazo-Harris.Nationwide Insurance in recent years refused to sell homeowners insurance to owners of certain breeds of dogs but since has eased its stance. It now offers homeowners insurance coverage for all dog owners though the liability portion of the policy doesn't cover the actions of certain breeds of "vicious dogs," according to spokesman Bob Cunningham. Instead, homeowners can buy separate liability coverage for those animals. They include, but are not limited to, Pit Bulls, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, Chow Chows, Presa Canarios, wolf hybrids, animals with a bite history and trained attack or guard dogs. What's more, prospective customers must demonstrate that the dogs successfully completed the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen program. Nationwide's position "allows policyholders to preserve coverage, while retaining the company's responsibility to adequately price its products according to the risk each customer presents," Cunningham said. The list of disqualified breeds was compiled on the basis of reputation, company research and dog-attack statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Such breed stereotyping bristles experts in animal behavior. "I've seen a lot of nice Pit Bulls, a lot of nice Akitas, a lot of nice Shepherds," Dr. Moon-Fanelli said. The perception that all Labrador Retrievers are easygoing and all German Shepherds are suspect is flat wrong. "I can vouch for that," she said, adding that most dogs around the nation have been bred for appearance, not temperament.The result is that dogs can run the spectrum - at one end, aggressive enough to attack, at the other so submissive that the dog sucks a blanket for comfort.Typically, dog bites occur because of a misunderstanding between the dog and victim, usually a child. "Problems are neither the dog nor the kid," Dr. Mertens said. "Many cases I see are related to a lack of understanding of canine behavior, anthropomorphic interpretations and unrealistic expectations toward a dog." Based on her clinical experience, she believes a facial bite by a dog looking like a Pit Bull is more likely to attract excessive press coverage than the same bite delivered by, say, a Golden Retriever. Some breeds do pose a greater risk if a particular dog is aggressive, Dr. Mertens hastened to add.Imagine that two dogs live in a household with a toddler. The toddler approaches the sleeping dogs, prompting growls. Let's say the two dogs are alike - equal size, age, gender, socialization - except one is a Border Collie, the other a PitBull, Mastiff, Rottweiler or Mastino Neapolitano. Most commonly, the latter breeds would deliver a more severe bite if the dog ever bites, Dr. Mertens said. "Based on breed alone, I have no reason to assume that the dog has a higher likelihood to bite."Breeding and socialization both playa role in making a dog aggressive, though it's impossible to determine the influence of each, said Melissa Bain, DVM, who specializes in behavior at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. She also serves as president of the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior.While responsible Pit Bull breeders work hard to change the image of Bully breeds, some unscrupulous ones breed for dog-fighting ability so their particular Bullies give little warning before turning aggressive - a good trait for the dog-fighting pit. Competitors want to give little warning. "They go from zero to 60 in a heartbeat," Dr. Moon Fanelli said.While quick-fix bans on specific breeds are tempting solutions for public officials, some practical concerns may be surprising. It's often difficult to determine a dog's breed because many brown-and-black dogs tend to be labeled Shepherd mixes, black dogs with tan markings are dubbed Rottweiler mixes and so on, Dr. Bain said. Critics wonder: Would genetic testing be required to make sure a dog is, say, at least 50 percent Pit Bull?Most dogs in this country have been bred for appearance rather than temperament.In addition, bans don't protect the public from dog bites from all breeds, as Jill Buckley, a legislative liaison for the ASPCA's Western Region, can attest after nursing a bitten ankle. "I was bitten by a Llasa Apso - cute little thing. It was going after my dog. I picked up my dog and it bit my ankle. Who'd a thought?" Though, of course, "all dogs have teeth.""Even the best socialized and cared-for dog in the world can have a predisposition toward displaying aggression," Dr. Bain said. A particular dog simply may have less tolerance for certain situations - such as a child staring into his eyes while handling the dog's favorite toy - andmay be more likely to bite instead of growl and/or snap. The opposite is true, too, she said. There are dogs who are "severely undersocialized, abused and neglected who never show aggression. "Maybe it's time for both owner and dog to be judged, not only the dog. Parts of Germany have startedto require an assessment of dogs of certain breeds and their owners once pets reach a certain age, Dr. Mertens said. Owners receive manuals and information to prevent problems. When the time for testing arrives, a veterinary behaviorist assesses owner and dog. "I'm curious to see how this will change things," Dr. Mertens said. While she doesn't like targeting certain breeds, she believes this particular idea looks good on paper.In the United States, critics of breed bans here suggest that enforcement of existing leash laws would be a step in the right direction. Less than one-half of 1 percent of fatal dog attacks on humans was caused by leashed dogs away from their homes, the 20-year JAVMA analysis found. Strong animal control programs could help, too. Some fatal attacks on people in the past two decades might have been averted through more stringent animal control laws and enforcement," such as leash laws and fencing requirements, the JAVMA study said.Dangerous dog legislation should be geared toward dogs who act aggressive and not generalized for specific breeds, Dr. Bain said. "All dogs need proper socialization and humane training, and the owners need to properly be able to identify potential problems. They also need to know where to seek appropriate, educated people to help with problems. Owners of all dogs, but especially any large, powerful breed, need to know how to properly manage them and control them around people and other dogs."Education of owners is key. "I'd start by educating vets to educate their clients on how to raise a puppy properly and special cautions that are necessary with certain breeds," Dr. Moon-Fanelli said.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Bill 132 Clarified for Ontario Residents

A Letter to the Citizens of Ontario

Considering the increase in verbal harassment and physical assaults directed at dog owners in recent weeks, I am hoping that this letter will help people in Ontario understand the current situation as it relates to dogs. First and foremost, Bill 132 has been passed and has received Royal Assent, but there has been no official announcement regarding the date it will come into force, nor have the regulations relating to "pit bulls" been published. The Attorney General has publicly stated that the Bill will not come into force until the end of the summer or early fall 2005. Until that effective date, nothing has changed in Ontario with respect to owning "pit bull" type dogs and walking them in public. Some municipalities in Ontario have their own specific restrictions and some individual dogs may have municipal or provincial orders against them. With the exception of these situations and their specific restrictions, it is our understanding from reviewing many municipal bylaws that until Bill 132 takes effect: 1. It is legal to own a "pit bull" type dog and the owner is allowed to walk it in public in accordance with the municipality's bylaws, unless a municipality, province, or court has ordered otherwise. 2. No dog is legally required to be muzzled in public unless a municipality, province, or court has ordered otherwise. 3. No dog is required by law to be spayed or neutered unless a municipality, province, or court has ordered otherwise. 4. Any dog of any breed is permitted off-leash in official leash-free parks provided it is under the owner's control and does not harass people or other animals, unless a municipality, province, or court has ordered otherwise. The Attorney General has stated that, after Bill 132 and the regulations relating to "pit bulls" take effect, owning an existing "pit bull" type dog will still be legal and the owner may continue to walk it in public in accordance with the municipality's bylaws and the restrictions of the new provincial legislation. Although the government has already passed the law, it has not yet made public the full contents of these new restrictions. In addition to the above,1. It is illegal to threaten or physically assault any person, even if you don't like their dog. Anyone who experiences or witnesses a threat or an assault should report the incident to local police.2. Currently, most municipalities require dog owners to license their dogs.3. It is a violation of most municipal bylaws to allow a dog of any breed to run off-leash in an undesignated area or to allow it to harass or attack people or other animals.4. The safest dog in the province is the dog that is under its owner's control, regardless of breed.For more information, please visit www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/.Steve BarkerOntario DirectorDog Legislation Council of Canada

Clarifications Regarding Bill 132 in Ontario

I'm going to list a few things here in the hope of clearing up some confusion that seems to popping up as a result of various posts to a number of different message boards. Please keep in mind that the ONLY things we have available to us right now are the text of Bill 132, various public statements by the Attorney General, and some statements made to one of our members by the Attorney General's office. Everything below is as I understand Bill 132 after its third reading. I'm not a lawyer, but most of this Bill is clear enough, with a few exceptions. 1. No date of enforcement has been officially announced. The Attorney General has publicly stated that the date of enforcement will be late summer or early fall 2005. Until that date, nothing has changed in Ontario regarding pit bulls. 2. The date of enforcement is to be determined by the Lieutenant Governor, in consultation with the Premier and his Cabinet. It is likely to be announced (along with the publication of regulations) at the end of March or beginning of April. 3. The regulations regarding pit bulls have not been officially published and are not likely to be available until the end of March or later. These regulations may include, but may not be limited to: leashing and muzzling, spaying or neutering, dog shows, etc. Only when these regulations are published will we know the full extent of our legal obligations. 4. A "restricted" pit bull is a pit bull type dog that is owned by a resident of Ontario on or before the date of enforcement or that was born within 90 days after that date. This is a LEGAL dog. 5. A "restricted" pit bull may be given to anyone outside the province, but may also be given (not sold) to someone in the province if that person has never owned a pit bull before or does not end up owning more pit bulls than they had when the Bill took effect. So, if one of your existing dogs dies, you can replace it with another one as long as the new one falls under the umbrella of "restricted" pit bull (see point 4 above). And anyone who has never owned a pit bull before can be given one, as long as it's already a legal pit bull. 6. Pit bulls born after the 90-day grace period are not legal and can be confiscated. It should be noted that pit bulls living outside the province may not be imported after the Bill comes into force. There is some conflict between the Dog Owners Liability Act and the Animals for Research Act as to what is done with these dogs after confiscation. One section says they must be killed. Another says that the pound can adopt them to someone outside Ontario, destroy them, or sell them for research. One of the biggest issues I see with the pit bull identification part of the law is that, a year from now, if you adopt a puppy of uncertain heritage that "looks like a pit bull", you can follow all the rules you want but the dog may still be declared illegal. 7. A pit bull is never allowed to bite or menace a person or other animal. If it does so, it must be destroyed. There is no other choice, regardless of why the dog did what it did. Extenuating circumstances are considered for other breeds. 8. If the court determines that your dog is a "pit bull" and you have violated the rules (regulations) regarding pit bulls, then it appears that the dog must be destroyed. The regulations have not yet been published, so we don't know what all the rules are going to be. There may also be some conflict between the Dog Owners Liability Act and the Animals for Research Act as to what happens to the dog if it ends up in the possession of a pound. 9. The regulations may proscribe muzzling or other restrictions, but we don't know what the regulations are yet. We can assume from the Attorney General's public statements that leashing, muzzling, and spay/neuter will be in there, but we don't know what else may be in the regulations. 10. If shelters, humane societies, SPCA, or rescue organizations are considered "owners" of the dogs that they already have (this isn't entirely clear), then they would be allowed to transfer the dogs (as long as they're not "selling" the dogs) to people in Ontario who fit the acceptable profile (see point 5 above). They can also transfer them to people outside the province. The Attorney General's office has stated to the media that shelters will still be allowed to adopt out pit bulls after the law comes into effect. We have no idea if charging adoption fees is considered "selling". 11. The dogs that are already in the pounds may transferred to people both inside and outside the province. The people in the province must fit the acceptable profile for pit bull owners (see point 5 above). The pounds also have the option of destroying the dog or selling it for research. 12. Any "restricted" pit bulls (i.e., legal) obtained by the pound after the law comes into effect appear to be treated the same way as point 11. There is some conflict as to whether or not these dogs can be returned to their owners (for example, if the dog accidentally gets loose and is picked up by Animal Control). If the owner is charged under clause 6 (e) of the Act (allowing a pit bull to stray), then subsection 4 (9) of the Act would apply and the dog would have to be destroyed. If Animal Control picks the dog up, but the owner isn't charged under the Dog Owners Liability Act, then it is possible that the dog might be returned to the owner, but there are definitely conflicts regarding this issue within Bill 132's changes to the Animals for Research Act.13. Any illegal pit bulls obtained by the pound must be transferred to someone outside the province, destroyed or sold for research. They cannot be given to someone inside Ontario.14. Owners of illegal pit bulls are not allowed to transfer them anywhere except to a pound or designated facility. 15. After the date of enforcement, don't leave Ontario for more than three months with your pit bull. You will not be allowed to bring the dog back in. If you are a resident of Ontario, but you own a pit bull that happens to be outside of Ontario on the date of enforcement, you will only have three months to get that dog back to Ontario. Basically, the terms of your responsibility as a dog owner can be summarized as follows:1. You must be in control of your dog (regardless of breed). 2. You must not allow your dog (regardless of breed) to bite or menace a person or domestic animal. 3. You must take reasonable precautions to ensure that your dog (regardless of breed) doesn't do those things. 4. If you own a legal pit bull, you must follow all regulations regarding pit bulls (as yet unpublished). 5. You are not allowed to own a pit bull if it was born after the 90-day grace period. You are not allowed to import a pit bull. 6. If you're not sure if your dog is a pit bull, but feel that it could be mistaken for one, then unless you can prove it isn't a pit bull, you should probably follow the regulations regarding pit bulls. There are other parts of the Bill that discuss the powers of peace officers, who those peace officers can be, when they need a warrant and when they don't, etc. These can generally be covered by the following statements: 1. If an officer believes that you have contravened any of the legislation's requirements and your dog is in public, he/she may immediately seize your dog and send it to the pound. 2. If an officer believes that you have contravened any of the legislation's requirements, he/she can get a warrant to enter any premises (including your home) and use as much force as is necessary against you or the dog in order to seize the dog. 3. If an officer believes that there are emergency circumstances, which can include but are not limited to the threat of immediate serious harm to a person or domestic animal, he/she can enter any premises (including your home), without a warrant, and use as much force as is necessary against you or the dog in order to seize the dog. There is no mention in the Bill of how the officer must come to believe the above things (i.e., no requirement that he/she must witness the offence). It is entirely possible that the officer accept the word of a neighbour or "interested party" that the offence has occurred. [bold mine] For more information, please visit www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/.Steve BarkerOntario DirectorDog Legislation Council of Canada

Monday, March 07, 2005

Bill 132 (link for viewing)

Here is the link to view Bill 132: http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/b132_e.htm

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Ontario's Heros

Some politicians did fight hard to defeat Bryant and Bill 132. Here are their names and email addresses:

Peter Kormos pkormos-co@ndp.on.ca
Joe Tasconaa joe_tascona@ontla.ola.org
Norm Miller Norm_miller@ontla.ola.org
Andrea Horwath ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca
Julia Monroe julia_monroe@ontla.ola.org
Garfield Dunlop garfield_dunlop@ontla.ola.org
Toby Barrett toby_barrett@ontla.ola.org
Tim Hudak timhudak@niagara.net
Bill Murdoch bill_murdoch@ontla.ola.org
Gerry Oullette jerry_ouellette@ontla.ola.org
John Yakabuski john_yakabuski@ontla.ola.org
Shelley Martel smartel-qp@ndp.on.ca

Vancouver City Council - Video Stream

This is the video stream from the Vancouver City Council meeting of February 17th, dealing with the "Dangerous Dogs Protection Strategy". http://cityofvan-as1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/c/317/1200/200502171350wv150en,002

Free Web Counters
Web Counters