The Ontario Legislation Banning specific Breeds was passed by the Liberals in reaction to sensationalized dog bites. The Liberals rushed this legislation through without addressing the root cause – irresponsible dog owners – and unfairly targeted and branded Pit Bulls and other large dogs.
The Liberal’s have put every dog breed is at risk of being banned in Ontario as long as this law exists.
The effect of the law is that it unjustly targets responsible dog owners and brands Pit Bulls and other larger doges as dangerous when all responsible dog owners know this is false and does nothing to advance public safety.
As the Premier of this Province and owner of “Robbie” (a Pitt Bull mix) I will overturn this specific breed ban. I will work in cooperation with groups like the CKC and other dog clubs have, to get this legislation overturned
I will do my part to assist them to overturn this unjust law and protect people’s freedom to own dogs while protecting the public from people who own or train dogs in a manner that is dangerous to the public.
On June 9, 2008 Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Gerda Verburg (Netherlands) announced the ban on Pit Bulls will be cancelled before the end of the year. The reason for this was that there was no reduction of biting incidents with dogs since Pit Bulls were banned. The ban was installed in 1993 after three biting incidents where three children were killed.1 New rules will no longer select on breed or Molosser looks but require a behaviour test for any large dog that shows signs of aggression2
- “Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls”. Asia.news.yahoo.com. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080609/ap/d916m6uo2.html. Retrieved on 2008-12-25.
- Dutch news site mentioning the end of the Pit Bull ban on June 9, 2008
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Deadly dog attacks have come to this: Ban pit bulls statewide
by The Bay City Times
Sunday April 19, 2009
We have had it with vicious dogs in Michigan, particularly the types known as pit bull terriers.
Ban the breeds.
Dogs have mauled four people to death in Michigan since September. Pit bulls severely mauled two people in Saginaw County last month. A Bay City man wrote in the People's Forum on this page to thank passersby for rescuing him and his dog last month from two attacking pit bulls in the city's South End. Fed up with the danger, a Saginaw man is trapping stray pit bulls in his neighborhood.
Just last week, sheriff's deputies killed on the spot three vicious dogs - described as a Australian shepherd-blue heelers mix - suspected in the death of a 41-year-old Huron County man. In September, a Rottweiler killed a 4-month-old girl in Warren. A day later, two American bulldogs attacked and killed two people in Livingston County. In 2006, a Hamtramck couple's two pit bulls killed their 6-year-old daughter.
It's a rampage of horror by animals that are supposed to be pets.
Vicious dogs have no place in society.
There would be a great hue and cry for action if these deadly attacks had come from wild animals.
Yet, bizarrely, we tolerate dog breeds among us that we know are selected, bred and raised to be stone killers.
A statewide ban on pit bull breeds and harsh penalties for the owner of any dog that mauls a human are in order.
Pit bull owners and admirers will say, as they have when a few Michigan municipalities started such bans, that it isn't fair to pick on a certain breed of dog.
Oh yes it is.
The frightening reputation of pit bulls didn't just pop out of nowhere.
Pit bull terriers are fighting dogs. Often, they are raised for illegal dog fights. Too many owners mistreat them into meanness for a twisted, macho-man display. Pit bulls are the tough-guy dog of choice.
Raised in cruelty, dogs can and do grow into vicious killers.
Four-legged sticks of dynamite that explode into attack mode if anything lights their fuse.
The flip side, of course, is that many pit bull owners are kind to their pets. Their dogs are well-mannered and friendly. We've met some of them; nice dogs.
So why not just ban vicious dogs, and not pick on pit bulls?
It's easier to spot the breed, which has a known history of mistreatment and killing, than the behavior. By the time a person discovers a dog is vicious, they're already under attack.
A pit bull ban isn't a novel idea. That great nation of dog lovers, the United Kingdom, outlawed "bully" breeds in 1991. The Canadian province of Ontario, our neighbors, banned the breed in 2005.
In contrast, scattered municipal ordinances in Michigan are all bark, with little bite.
Enact a statewide ban. Model it on Ontario's or the UK's. Responsible owners of docile pit bulls might be allowed to have their pets tested for aggression, registered and microchipped.
It's too bad that it has come to this for pit bulls, the poor things. Almost any dog, including this breed, can be bred and raised into a great pet or working companion - or both.
But this dog has been abused. Through society's and breeders' failure to police the breed, its reputation for savagery now precedes it.
Ban the breed. And aggressively prosecute the owner of any vicious dog, of any type.
Some dog owners will howl in outrage.
Consider, though, the price of doing nothing. Four dead in Michigan, in eight months. Killed by "pets."
That's the outrage.
Rambled by Conners at Sunday, April 19, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Dog owner seeks Supreme Court challenge to Ontario’s pit-bull ban
April 16, 2009
TORONTO — The lawyer for a pit-bull owner fighting Ontario’s ban on the dogs is hoping the Supreme Court of Canada will reverse a decision allowing the law to stand.
Civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby has filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of Toronto dog owner Catherine Cochrane asking for a review of an Appeal Court decision last October that upholds the province’s ban.
“It’s important to take every step we can against breed-specific legislation which assumes that it’s the nature of the breed that creates danger when in fact it’s the owners who create danger,” Ruby said today.
“There are some people who want dangerous dogs. If you ban one breed, they’ll be quickly on to another.”
The Appeal Court concluded in October that pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable dogs that have the potential to attack without warning.
Ruby is challenging that ruling, arguing the court failed to focus on whether the law was too broad and was also wrong in upholding a provision that allows veterinarians to determine whether the dog is in fact a pit bull.
He said that provision unfairly reverses the presumption of innocence.
“We’re raising constitutional issues,” Ruby said. “We think the law is too vague.
The whole definition of what’s a pit bull leaves it open to huge doubt, and that’s contrary to our constitutional guarantees.”
The Ontario government enacted the Dog Owners’ Liability Act in 2005 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people.
The law survived a constitutional challenge in March 2007, with some changes ordered. At the time, it was decided that a ban on “pit-bull terriers” was unconstitutionally vague because it didn’t refer to a specific type or breed of dog.
The Appeal Court disagreed, restoring the law to the form in which it was enacted and stating the ban on the breed did not violate any constitutional rights.
After that October ruling, Ruby began considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.
“There is no scientific or statistical basis to conclude that dogs captured by the definition of ‘pit bulls’ are more dangerous than other dogs,” Ruby wrote in his submission to the Supreme Court.
“No studies have been done on the origins or characteristics of the dog population in Ontario in general or on the behavioural trends of dogs captured by the definition of ‘pit bulls’ in the act.”
Crown experts who have testified about dog bites in the U.S. “readily admitted that they were not familiar with the Canadian situation and that there was little or no data, let alone scientific study, done on the Canadian situation,” he added.
Ruby acknowledged it will be difficult to get the Supreme Court to hear the case since it only takes on about 75 cases a year, but he said all legal channels must be explored.
“It will affect an undoing of the ban if we’re right,” Ruby said.
Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley declined to comment on the matter, saying it is before the courts.
Rambled by Conners at Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Clayton Ruby seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Ontario pit-bull ban
Clayton Ruby seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Ontario pit-bull ban
TORONTO, April 16 /CNW/ - Civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby has filed an
application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of
dog owner, Catherine Cochrane, regarding the Ontario government's law banning
pit-bulls: the Dog Owners' Liability Act.
On October 24, 2008, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its
decision dismissing Ms. Cochrane's appeal and allowing the Ontario
government's cross-appeal. As a result, all of the amendments to the Dog
Owners' Liability Act introduced back in 2005 were upheld, even those that the
trial judge, Justice Herman, originally struck down.
Mr. Ruby is now asking the Supreme Court of Canada to review this case on
(1) the Court of Appeal set the bar too low for the government
in defending the constitutionality of legislation by only requiring the
government to adduce "some evidence" of the harm the legislation is intended
(2) the Court of Appeal failed to focus on whether the law is
overbroad in "some applications", which is all that is required;
(3) the Court
of Appeal considered the likelihood that individuals will be imprisoned for
violating the law, which is an irrelevant factor in the analysis;
Court of Appeal failed to appreciate what degree of guidance a law must
provide in order to not be impermissibly vague; and
(5) the Court of Appeal
erred in upholding the part of the law that allows a veterinarian's
certificate to constitute proof that the dog is a pit bull in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, a provision which unfairly reverses the presumption
Rambled by Conners at Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
While Monique Tamminga is a reporter and graduated her college journalism program, it goes to show in this editorial that the need to research a subject isn't necessary. She is adding fuel to an already out of control fire and the bans play out further and further as she sputters out her spew of utter nonsense that many people reading with no factual knowledge of the breeds are learning from.
In MY opinion, I believe Ms Tamminga would be better off as a fictional writer where no research is involved and not influencing people with her ignorance. It was by this very logic from Michael Bryant that the Ontario's Pit bull Ban first originated.
When it comes to ammunition they speak to who ever can support their theory rather than allowing opposing experts in this field have their say. Talk about pick and choose and we in Ontario with our wonderful family members pay the price same as we do by losing socialization skills and get cut out of simple doggy pleasures, such as running for a ball or gnawing on a fallen branch.
Those with 6 foot secure fences around their property are not as secluded and some more fortunate than others to have multi dogs at home to play with even if in the house, if not outside. But then there are some of us that are not allowed and living in rental units. We are all that the dog has and many of us feel so badly that we aren't allowed to offer our dogs more without breaking laws and bylaws. This in itself is heart breaking without hearing and reading more propaganda designed to scare people of some very wonderful and misrepresented breeds.
It doesn't shock me that Tamminga graduated from a journalism program as she represents a vast majority of reporters dishing out the same old fictional crap. Matter of fact, as I read this I felt like I had read it a thousand times before. Change a sentence or two, always mention where prior bans are and add a little detail (just a tad) to make it sound original. Oh, and adding proven myths are always a grabber.
Pit bulls are ticking time bombs? I'm really beginning to think like they do and sterio typing reporters.
REPORTERS ARE TICKING TIMES BOMBS and should be banned due to the severe damage they cause to the minds of innocent victims!
Monique Tamminga - Langley Times
Monique Tamminga has been a reporter with The Langley Times since 2000. She covers Langley City, courts and news. She is a graduate of the Langara College journalism program.
Pit bulls are ticking time bombs
Published: April 14, 2009
Editorial – Just as gun advocates say ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people,’ now pit bull advocates are preaching their mantra – ‘it’s not the breed, it’s the owner’ – after a three-year-old boy was mauled in an unprovoked attack, and a Maple Ridge mother was bitten by a pit bull running loose on a trail. She likely will lose full use of her fingers.
Along with these terrible tales come renewed calls to ban the breed just as countries across the world have done, as well as the province of Ontario and the city of Winnipeg. Prohibiting the sale of pit bulls is something the province should consider.
A dog bite by a golden retriever and an attack by a pit bull produce very different results.
A pit bull locks on to its prey, and even a crow bar can’t always unlock the death grip it can have on someone’s face, arm or leg.
Here’s another reason: When have you ever heard of a pack of labradoodles roaming the streets, then all of sudden turning on an unsuspecting person for a full-out attack?
Pit bull advocates are right: It’s not the breed – it is the owners.
Putting political correctness aside, people who gravitate toward this breed are often the very ones who turn pit bulls into walking time bombs.
People buy this breed to feel tough, to intimidate, to use the breed as guard dogs for drug houses. Most buy this breed and fulfill the stereotype, sorry to say.
Most pit bulls around town don a spiked collar, only furthering their fearful reputation.
It’s often a wonder if pit bull owners get off on watching people walk to the other side of the road. Nothing spoils a fun day at the off-leash park like a pit bull and a bad owner coming out to play.
Then there are those who adopt pit bulls because they have an innate need to save this breed from damnation. Owners of all aggressive breeds are the problem.
But just as we can’t oversee every gun owner to make sure he or she is a responsible person, we can’t trust every pit bull owner to raise these potentially vicious dogs right. The province recently banned the ownership of exotic and wild animals. They should do the same for pit bulls for the same reasons.
A ban won’t stop dog bites from happening, but it will stop bad people from rearing ticking time bombs.
Rambled by Conners at Tuesday, April 14, 2009