Thursday, May 04, 2006

So, it's not a Pit bull! Looks like one!

How much crazier can this BSL crap get? This claim of Burnsey being a Pit bull is bull all right.

In Winnipeg, they claim Burnsey isn't a pit bull by breed, but by characteristics.

His sister from the same litter was captured and released last year when she got loose.

Of course a Pit bull isn't recognized as a breed in Canada. There is NO SUCH BREED AS PIT BULLS!

We've been telling that to Michael Bryant since he first started shooting his mouth off about that here in Ontario. Pit bulls, became our governments labeling, not ours.

I would prefer this owner have better control of his dogs, but dogs do slip out even with the best of intensions.

This story shows just how rediculious BSL really is and this story in the Winnipeg Sun.

Will sis bail out Burnsey?
Neither a pit bull: owner
By
ROSS ROMANIUK, CITY HALL REPORTER

Spring is seen here with owner Derrick Burke, who says she's proof her brother Burnsey is not a pit bull. (JON SCHLEDEWITZ Sun)

A Winnipeg dog's potential escape from a city legal muzzle could come from his bloodlines and those of its owner.

Derrick Burke, whose brother, Mike, is facing a loss of his pet and heavy fines for allegedly keeping a pit bull within Winnipeg's limits, says he can prove his sibling's innocence with his own canine -- which is definitely not a member of the dangerous, municipally banned breed.

"I have the sister, and my dog is not a pit bull -- period, point blank," Derrick Burke, a North End resident, told the Sun yesterday.

"Not even an ounce, man. I have pictures of all of them lying together when they were born."

Derrick, 29, spoke up after a Sun story detailed his younger brother's coming court battle to maintain possession of Burnsey, a three-year-old male which he insists is a Rottweiler-boxer cross.

The city's animal services agency, however, says it has ordered Mike Burke to get rid of his pet because it meets the basic definition of a "pit bull-type" dog under Winnipeg's pound bylaw.

And agency manager Tim Dack says even if Burnsey isn't a pit bull by specific definition, it "predominately meets the characteristics" of the breed as it's generally viewed by authorities in this country -- unlike in the United States.

"In Canada, pit bulls are not recognized as purebreds," Dack explained to the Sun.

"They're recognized as a cross breed in Canada."

BYLAW COURT

And that key difference in definition could mean Burnsey's 27-year-old owner will be the underdog when he tries to convince a bylaw court that his pet shouldn't remain confiscated by the pound where it's been held since last week.

Meanwhile, the Sun has received several e-mails from readers who say a photograph of the dog clearly shows it's not a pit bull.

Mike Burke's case -- to see trial dates set at a hearing on May 11 -- marks the second time that he has come under city scrutiny over his pet.

Burnsey caused "a couple of punctures" when biting a victim several months ago, Dack said.

"He was told it's a pit bull and to get it out of town," Dack said. "If he has evidence that suggests otherwise, he can certainly present that in court."

If found guilty, Mike Burke faces fines totalling $1,600 and a loss of his pet, which Dack said would likely be shipped outside the city.

Derrick, however, pointed out that his three-year-old female dog, Spring, had been captured by the city last year and later released back to him -- a move he says makes Burnsey's case stronger.

1 comment:

Conners said...

Couldn't agree with you more Audrey Ann. Now for the government to see it.
Thanks for the compliment.