Replies of candidates running in London's Municiple elections

With the municipal elections underway in London, Ontario, this is a good chance to find out what the candidates views are in London. I'm going to cut a paste an email I received from Emily, AFTU.

I have posed a few short questions to candidates where and when I can.

Ward 2 – Steve Pohill came to my door and basically looked at his toes and told me people BOUGHT pitbulls for all the wrong reasons and what did I think of muzzling ALL large breed dogs in the city . . .then Daphne walked over and dropped her toy at his feet – you should have seen his expression!

Tim Gatten – board of control – basically said he knows he doesn’t have the “dog owners vote” and doesn’t care, he will be elected anyways and that his friend was attacked by a dog last year so I can tell “all my friends” who have the same questions as me that he is for the bylaws and would make more.

I emailed Ms. Barber back and said it wasn’t a “campaign” but a group of concerned individuals (dog owners and not) that cared about their rights and freedoms within their municpality. And below are direct email replies:

I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to call you yet, things have been a little hectic so I'm glad you emailed me about this issue. Its much easier to respond later at night when I know I won't be disturbing anyone like I would if I phoned! I did not favour breed specific legislation from a personal point of view and would not vote to enact such a bylaw as a councillor.

I don't believe it is the breed of dog which makes it dangerous, rather it is more likely the conditioning provided by the owner, regardless of breed. If the provincial legislation is quashed by the court, it would be a good opportunity - as well as legally prudent - to repeal the municipal bylaw.

As for my position on dangerous dogs in London, I feel there should be adequate safeguards for the public but as for which ones specifically, I would ask your advice for what might be reasonable.

I am concerned with the contract for Animal Care and Control in London. It would appear they are not compassionate in their care for found animals and quickly put them down without spending the time to find their owners. From anecdotal experience, I've heard they go door to door in the Cherryhill apartments telling seniors they must buy a cat license for their pet or face the prospect of losing it. I don't believe this is the way any organization should behave.

It is my understanding that the AC&C contract was renewed for 5 years but the terms of the contract have yet to be finished. Perhaps the new council can move quickly to address some of these concerns in the contract.

Thank you for taking the time to email me. If you would still like, I am willing to contact you by phone to further discuss the issues. And, of course, you can always contact me.

All the best, Stephen Turner Candidate - Ward 6 519-495-1578

Ms. Barber:

Hi Emily,

I received this exact same question from another constituent, so I assume there is a campaign in progress on this issue. I will tell you the same as I told the other person. I am not a big fan of the pitbull legislation. I don't believe it is possible to legally define a pitbull. I believe that an animal, like a human being, should be judged on its behaviour rather than some undetermined physical characteristics.

I'm sorry to be this brief. Your questions deserve a longer answer, but I simply don't have the time to go through all the nuances before the vote on November the 13th. all I can say is that I have encountered a number of dogs that have been described to me as pitbulls that I have found to be very sociable. That should be the criterion for the restrictions placed on certain dogs, in my estimation.

I have heard that the Humane Society is currently awash with dogs that may fit the pitbull description that have now become unadoptable. That is not an appropriate way to treat animals.

Sincerely,

Gina Barber

John Walsh

Dear Emily: Thank you for your Email. I already answered the same questions for Lester Lundy. I tried to copy the answers into your email but it didn'twork. so I will answer them again.----- Original Message ----- : Questions for Election Candidates

Dear Mr. Walsh

With the upcoming municipal election I was hoping you would have a chance to answer a couple of questions I have in order to help me make my decisionon whom to vote for.

My concerns lie with the municipal bylaws regards dogs, Animal Care and Control and the Dangerous Dog laws/Pit bull Ban, specifically how this effects London.

I would be very interesting in hearing your thoughts/feeling on the Bill132 revisions to the Dog Owners Liability Act and how it effects public safety given that prior to this provincial legislation London entertained a Dangerous Dog bylaw targeting 4 specific breeds.I think the whole Dog Control Act should be revisited by a committee of owners, members of coucnil, interested citizens and possibly the police.

There groups should examine all the problems (disregarding past lawsand actions) if the dog owners Liability Act is defeated and develop a planto bring to council. I have been associated with dogs all my life and there are some that I like and many that I don't like. That does not make them wrong or less valuable to their owners, it simple means that for the protection of the public the committee (discussed above) will have to make recommendations to the council before the act is passed.

I am curious as to what you would do/want for London come the repeal of Bill 132 (as it being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada)?

The committee mentioned above would immediately come into play and would have to quickly make recommendataions to council.

Would you proceed with the 4-breed municipal ban?

I am not sure that that is the answer. If is an answer but again the committee would have to examine the implications of any action taken by council or other levels of government.

What restrictions would remain (of any) Pitbull/large breed dog owners?

I am sorry but I do not know. It is an area where expert help is neededfrom the goups mentioned above.

I personally am not impressed by Pitbull dogs probably because of the images that is in our minds of these dogs, I would therefore recommend that the committee draft effective actions for control of Pitbull and other dogs in the same catagory.

How would you plan to enforce these restrictions?

While I am not a Native person I think that their "healing circle' concept for this type of offence might be interesting and possible the best. The owner would have a chance to talk to the victim and a concensus should be arrived at. This is only one method. I am sure that there are many otheres that need to be addresssed.

Would there be any exemptions given for Service Dogs?

Yes absolutely. These dogs are trained and should be expected to react properly regardless of the circumstances. If an incident occures that the dog must be sent for more training or retirement.

Given that the current system of bylaw enforcement in regards to AnimalCareI assume that my "reactive" you mean that the bylaw enforcement officers will "lower the boom" on these animals. I think this would be wrong unless the violation was so flagreant that immediate action is necessary and Control is very much reactive as opposed to pro-active, what are your plan/hopes for the future?

I appreciate your time, and look forward to your answers. Sorry that some of my answers are vague but it is because I am not on council and do not kno what has happened in the past. That doens''t mean to say that it will be the same in the future.

Please look at my website www.controllersjohn.ca

If you would like to discuss it further please call me at PHONE: 519.673.3612

Gord Hume

As this issue is before the Supreme Court, I think it is prudent to wait until that case if disposed of and then consider what options municipalities have.

GORD

Boy Killed By Pit Bulls

Boy Killed By Pit Bulls
By Jason Boyer, jboyer@wagt.com

http://www.nbc26news.com/news/local/4571412.html

A father from Bamberg County will be charged with homicide by child neglect after his son was killed by pit bulls.Michael Young Junior and 22-month-old son Allen moved into their new home on Sweet Pea Road in Bamberg Saturday night.

"Where he had been living before he had his four pit bulls tied outside," said Bamberg County Sheriff Edward Darnell.

But Young had not tied his dogs up outside his new home yet, he was letting the four dogs stay the night indoors.

Saturday after putting his son to bed, he stepped outside to talk with his landlord.

Says Sheriff Darnell, "He was out there just a matter of minutes and when he went back in he saw the dogs with the child. They had taken the child from the bed into the kitchen."Allen was found bleeding on the kitchen floor.

His dad rushed him to the Bamberg County Hospital.

"The doctors were comfortable that he was not going to make it when he left," says Bamberg County Deputy Norris Williams. "But they did everything they could in hopes that as professionals they were wrong."

Allen Young died just after 1 o'clock Sunday morning.

"These particular pit bulls had not been a problem," says Sheriff Darnell. It's just they had been on the outside. We found out this little boy had pet them before and even helped feed them."

"There are a lot of dogs in homes with children today...but I think good common sense will tell you that you don't keep your 1-year-old child in the bed asleep with this type of dog in the home."

The Sheriff's Office says Michael Young will be charged later this week with homicide by child neglect.

Reintroduction of Animal Cruelty - Legislation Bill C-50

Reintroduction of Animal Cruelty Legislation

Mark Holland reintroduced Bill C-50 in the House of Commons. This is a very important bill. Please write to your federal MP urging him/her to support it. For further info go to the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies website (http://www.cfhs.ca/) .

Please cross post this to anyone you know who is concerned about the importance of increasing the penalties for cruelty to animals.

Time to speak up, people....

For London Residence:

House of Commons Irene Mathyssen
Federal Political Experience
Caucus:* NDP
Constituency: London-Fanshawe
Hill Office
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 995-2901
Fax: (613) 943-8717
EMail: Mathyssen.I@parl.gc.ca
Preferred Language: English

Constituency Offices
1700 Dundas Street (Main Office)
London, Ontario
N5W 3C9
Telephone: (519) 685-4745
Fax: (519) 685-1462

House of Commons Hon. Sue Barnes
Federal Political Experience
Caucus:* Liberal
Constituency: London West
Hill Office
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 996-6674
Fax: (613) 996-6772
EMail: Barnes.S@parl.gc.ca
Web Site:* www.suebarnes.on.ca/
Preferred Language: English

Constituency Offices
460A Springbank Drive,
London, Ontario
N6J 1G8
Telephone: (519) 473-5955
Fax: (519) 473-7333

Let's get crackin' and get this bill in place!

DeSoto may ban some dog breeds

In the Dallas Morning News comes this article today. I wonder how many dogs involved really are of the bullie breeds. The general public and the media have such a broad perception of what a Pit bull is, that Boxers and Jack Russel Terriers are only a couple of mistaken dogs that they call Pit bulls.

DeSoto may ban some dog breeds

After pit bulls' attack on officer, other incidents, forum planned
By KATHY A. GOOLSBY / The Dallas Morning News

DESOTO – Earlier this year, two pit bulls attacked and bit a DeSoto police officer. And in another case, a pit bull escaped from its yard and trapped some neighbors in their home, forcing authorities to take drastic action.

"He got on their porch and wouldn't let them leave. We had to shoot that one, and we've had to shoot several others," said DeSoto police Capt. Ron Smith. "Unfortunately, the number of calls is increasing, and it usually involves pits.

"For some reason, that breed is more susceptible to bad training or breeding, and can easily become an aggressive dog."

Because of the recent spate of canine aggressiveness, city leaders plan to take another look at DeSoto's animal ordinance – which could lead to banning certain breeds, officials say.

But first, they want to hear what residents think.

"Rather than jump in and try to make changes to our ordinance, the council decided it would be worthwhile to have a forum for the community to come forward and talk about dogs," said City Manager Jim Baugh.

"We want to know what they like or don't like about dogs, whether it's chasing cars or digging under fences, or whether they would like us to consider banning certain breeds from the city."

One possibility at the Dec. 7 session could be the banning of all large dogs.
City leaders acknowledge that prospect could raise questions.

"Do you ban all dogs over 50 pounds?" asked Mayor Michael Hurtt. "Because then you've got the Old English sheepdog who's never bitten anyone."

The mayor acknowledged, though, that his personal concern is pit bulls, which include several breeds, such as the American pit bull terrier and Staffordshire bull terriers.

"Unfortunately, the complaints I've heard are pretty specific to pit bulls," Mr. Hurtt said. "We've heard from so many residents the last couple of years who have been bothered by them."

The problem lies more with the owners than the dogs, Capt. Smith said. He's seen pit bulls, as well as Rottweilers and other breeds commonly perceived as vicious, that are very social and friendly.

"If you mistreat them or train them to be aggressive, then it causes problems," he said.

Mr. Hurtt said vicious-dog problems in DeSoto go back as far as November 1993, when a female Rottweiler killed a 5-year-old child after digging out of its pen.

Pit bulls have been banned in Denver since 1989. Miami and Cincinnati followed with bans, and last year Ontario became the first Canadian province to prohibit pit bulls. Richardson passed an ordinance restricting ownership of the dogs in 1987, but it was struck down two years later by a Dallas appeals court.

DeSoto officials also may face legal roadblocks if they try to ban pit bulls or any specific breed.

"They can't do it under state law. They can only regulate the behavior, not the breed," said Jay Sabatucci, regional program manager for the Humane Society of the United States.

Mr. Sabatucci said that under Texas' Health and Safety Code, cities are allowed to regulate the handling of vicious or dangerous dogs, regardless of the breed.

"The Humane Society does not encourage specific breed legislation," Mr. Sabatucci said. "It's just bad law."

In recent years, increased growth in DeSoto has resulted in smaller yards and people living closer together, Mr. Hurtt said, and that can magnify any pet problems. Barking dogs and canines running loose in neighborhoods are among the complaints he's hearing more often, he said.

"In the area I live in, there is an apartment across the street with a family that has three pit bulls living in the apartment," said Mr. Hurtt, whose last two dogs lived 13 and 16 years. "I love animals, I believe in animals, but we've grown from a small community to a larger city, and it's time we had a discussion."

Other options officials may consider include limiting the number of animals in a specific space.

"We don't want to have some knee-jerk reaction to the people that scream the loudest," Mr. Hurtt said. "We want to know if this is a widespread problem or if people are OK with our ordinance."

The current DeSoto animal ordinance is relatively common, with such standard requirements as leashes and vaccinations.

Eight-year DeSoto resident Joe Pickens recently acquired two part chow, part pit bull puppies. He said responsible ownership is the key to raising safe dogs.

"I keep mine in the house or in the back yard, where I have a big board so they can't dig out," Mr. Pickens said. "They shouldn't ban a breed, just single out the dogs that are problems."

Cynthia Birl doesn't have any pets but sees no reason to change the city's animal ordinance. She's more concerned about the coyotes in her neighborhood than the dogs, which she said haven't caused her any problems since she moved to DeSoto 10 months ago.

Mr. Baugh hopes attendance at next month's meeting includes people with all sorts of dog concerns, both good and bad.

"We want to hear from people who have an issue and people who like the way we're doing things," Mr. Baugh said. "We need to hear from everybody."

E-mail kgoolsby@dallasnews.com

Great Legal Defense Fundraisers

Please Don't Bully Me Fundraiser

www.brok.ca is pleased to announce the Please Don't
Bully Me fundraiser!

Make a donation and help us raise money to support the legal challenge of
Bill 132 - fighting Breed Specific Legislation in Ontario, Canada - and
receive a gift exclusively from www.brok.ca.

Depending on the amount you wish to donate, you can choose from our Please
Don't Bully Me embroidered doggie tees, bandanas or our Dirty Paws Here
doggie towels - all available in a wide variety of colours.

Canadian residents donate before December 5, 2006 and US residents
donate before November 24, 2006 to receive your gift in time for Christmas.

2007 Beautiful Staffies and their Ladies Calendar

53 shopping days until Christmas!

Don't forget to order your calendar! Visit www.staffordcanada.com to
order your calendar now.

The holidays coming and for a $20 donation to the legal fund you can
have a unique gift to give out to friends and family. Also a great
hostess gift for that dog loving friend, Secret Santa at work.

‘Playing’ with dog leads to 39 stitches; girl’s great-aunt says mastiff/pit bull didn’t realize he did wrong

Here I go repeating myself, but while all this was going on, where was the adult supervision? I would think, playing or not, there would be tremendously loud screaming coming from the two girls as Caitlyn was being bitten.

It doesn't say the age of the dog to know whether the dog was still young, but the important thing here is if you have children...no, I retract that and say, that all dogs should be taught 'gentle' and children should be taught not to excite a dog regardless of breed. Weight factor alone shows that a playful dog and a seven year old is going to end up hurt, even if it's from a bump.

I'm not convinced of the 'rag doll' theory and it sounds to me like this biting of hair is a game that was played more often than this once. Why would anybody allow a dog to bite hair as a game? Basically, it seems this dog was set up to fail by not teaching it properly, as were the girls for not being taught dog bite prevention.

I'm not saying accidents will never happen, but in cases like this it was avoidable if only an adult had been there and corrected both the girls and the dog before harm was done.

This article is in the Palatka Daily News.

‘Playing’ with dog leads to 39 stitches; girl’s great-aunt says mastiff/pit bull didn’t realize he did wrong

By Ron Bartlett

A Bostwick girl was rushed to the hospital after being mauled by a neighbor’s dog on Monday afternoon, according to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office.

Caitlyn Gill, 7, was playing with another girl and the girl’s dog, reported to be a 90-pound bull mastiff/pit bull mix, when, in what was perceived to be a playful act, the animal began biting at her hair. The snapping continued to her face, opening up her nose and right cheek, one eyelid, puncturing a hole in the back of her head and eventually requiring 39 stitches.

“I don’t really actually think that this was a vicious attack,” said Kathleen Sanders, Caitlyn’s great-aunt. “Afterward (the dog) was just wagging his tail. He didn’t have a clue that he did anything wrong.”

Caitlyn was sedated and taken to Shands at UF, where a plastic surgeon performed over two hours of surgery to repair the damage. Sanders said that Doctors expect she will have to make several return visits.

Sanders said the owners of the dog were going to kill it right there, but the sheriff’s office intervened and called Animal Control, which took possession of the dog for a mandated 10-day quarantine. After that, the animal will be released to the owners, to do with it as they will.

“The story isn’t about a vicious dog attack,” Sanders said. “Playful can cause this also. They’ve got that personality and mentality and they take a little girl’s hair and think of it as a rag doll. It happened so quickly.”

Sanders added that the dog’s owners are devastated, and did not leave the emergency room while Caitlyn was in surgery. She said that Caitlyn was not mad at the dog at all.

Sanders said that she has raised Labrador retrievers for years and can’t comprehend owners who choose dogs with a reputation for aggression.

“They say, ‘aww, they wouldn’t hurt a thing.’ Really — I don’t believe it.”

PCSO Capt. Phil Altice, assistant chief of special services, which oversees Animal Control, said that he doesn’t think that it’s fair to single out any particular breed of dog as being more vicious.

“Any dog is liable to bite, whether it be a Chihuahua or a pit bull,” he said.

“Of course, a pit bull — when it bites someone, people go bananas.”

In a research study by the CDC on dog bite-related fatalities between 1979 and 1996, pits and pit mixes accounted for 70 of the 199 total deaths recorded, equating to a ratio of more than one in three. German shepherds were listed second, responsible for 30 deaths during the same period. Since 1993, rottweilers have been involved in more fatalities than any other breed.

In that same study, Florida was listed fourth among all states in dog-related fatalities with 14, trailing only Alaska (18), Texas (26) and California (30).

There are currently restrictions on the ownership of American Pit Bulls in several places in the U.S. and abroad.

They are banned in the United Kingdom under the 1991 Dangerous Dog Act and will be destroyed and their owner prosecuted if discovered there. In 2005, Ontario banned their sale, import or breeding. That same year in the U.S., Denver reinstated a ban prohibiting “pit bull” type dogs and has subsequently euthanized over 1,000 animals — despite the protests of animal right activists, who point to the fact there has been no decrease in the overall number of dog bites. Miami and Cincinnati have also enacted bans.

In 2001, an estimated 368,245 persons were treated in U.S. hospitals for non-fatal dog bite-related injuries, with rates highest among children aged 5-9.

According to the sheriff’s office, law enforcement in the county responds to 300-400 animal bites annually.

Statistical data does not support a ban against pit bulls

In the Ancaster News view points are still trying to get across to the public why the breed ban lacks accurate and statistical data. I don't think it's so much the people that need to be convinced. The government wasn't looking for accurate data. There was one goal for Michael Bryant and the Liberal party and that was to get rid of Pit bulls period.

As for other breeds mistaken for Pit bulls, they are sure to be on the banned list next along with other dogs that the government decides should be on the 'Dangerous List'.

If we allow one breed to be banned, there will be so many other breeds that will follow. That's why it's so important to support the Legal Fight and stop this senceless ban and give us back our rights as citizens. It's wrong of the government to dictate as to what kind of breed we own.

Statistical data does not support a ban against pit bulls
(Oct 27, 2006)

As an animal lover I am shocked and appalled by the pit bull ban. Pit bull is not even a specific breed but a term that includes many breeds of dogs, and many people could not even tell you which dogs are pit bulls and which are not. There are at least 20 breeds of dogs that are mistaken for pit bulls everyday.

After doing research, I was shocked to discover that pit bulls do not even have locking jaws as I have always heard. This is just a legend. Pit bulls are very misunderstood and this is mostly due to lack of education. There is no scientific proof, and statistical data is inaccurate to prove anything against pit bulls. Neither Canada nor Ontario keeps statistics on dog bites. Any breed can become mean through lack of training, abuse, neglect, and irresponsible ownership and breeding.

The law is too vague and broad and applies to many other breeds. The Ontario ban even covers breeds that look like a pit bull and that are not actually a part of the breed. Banning an entire breed does not solve the problem of responsible ownership. There is no scientific basis to say that pit bulls are any more dangerous than any other dog. In the hands of a caring, responsible owner pit bulls can be wonderful pets just like any other. The decision to legislate this breed has been done without proper research or public input.

Roni Pollington
Dundas

Shasta's new modeling career

Well what can I say? My Shasta holds many hidden talents and surprises me everyday.
When you buy your t-shirts at http://www.allforpaws.ca/ take a look at who's modeling the black t-shirt.

Happy Birthday Shasta!

Birthday girl, Shasta, 4 years old

October 20th

Her first full day Birthday Party Outting, muzzleless and leashless on private property.

Shasta and Lucy exploring logs. Lucy's a pro at it while Shasta is strill trying to figure out what this freedom's about.

Are we in with the leaves or are we trash???

HAPPY BIRTHDAY SHASTA

My Birthday wish to you is much more freedom to come soon as we WIN.

Love Mommy xoxoxo

Shasta's EARLY Birthday Present

I had previously written about Louise from http://www.allforpaws.ca/ and that she has kindly created a doggy t-shirt for the DLCC and $5.00 from each shirt will be going to the legal challenge fund! We've since become friends and I can tell you her fight against the BSL and the ban is as firm as mine and finding out a lot of great advice for me.



Well, I couldn't help but join the bandwagon and order one for Shasta too. I have to say, they look and feel terrific and Shasta LOVES hers.

It was suppose to be a birthday present for her this Friday, but once I opened the package, you can imagine the excitement that I had to put it right on her. Well, there goes the 'surprise', but I don't think she much cares if I rewrap it just so she can open it again. LOL

The guality of the t-shirts are excellent. I've washed Shasta's a couple of times now and they always look picture perfect when I put it back on her. I love that they have the longer sleeve which will really benefit come the snow. Shasta loses heat very quickly and NEEDS to be dressed for winter. The saying always make people laugh and who can be afraid of a bullie you're giggling at even with the muzzle on in public.

If I wasn't absolutely delighted with the t-shirt, I wouldn't be writing to recommend for all you dog owners to order some for your dogs too. Shasta loves it. I love it and at the same time you are helping out the Defence Fund which is badly in need of our funds.





HAPPY 'EARLY' 4th BIRTHDAY my precious one!!!

Some interesting pet info

We're probably all biting our nails waiting for the final verdict to arrive, so to break the tension (mine if not yours), I thought I'd add some interesting pet info.

Better behaved pets through chemistry?
Pheromone products may ease anxiety, but they’re not a panacea
By Kim Campbell Thornton
MSNBC contributor

Linus doesn’t like strangers. The 4-year-old mixed breed had a lot to cope with, then, when his owner, Alberta Hanko of Smithtown, N.Y., had eight guests that Linus had never met. But Linus had a security blanket in the form of a plug-in that was emitting DAP, or dog appeasing pheromone, which is said to have a calming effect.

“I used the plug-in along with a lot of positive reinforcement,” says Hanko, who had confined Linus to the kitchen using a baby gate. “At first, he was extremely nervous, barking whenever people moved, but we had only had the DAP plugged in for half an hour. After an hour or so, he settled in and I was able to remove sheets that I had hung over the gate so he was able to see people. He actually acted calm and got used to them coming and going."

Not surprisingly, people with anxious pets eagerly seek out anything that might help reduce the barking, howling, chewing, house soiling and urine marking associated with their pets’ problem. Like Hanko, many try the recently introduced products containing pheromones, which are biological or chemical substances that influence sexual and other behaviors in animals. The sprays and plug-ins — Feliway for cats and DAP for dogs — are aimed at calming anxious pets.

Various forms of anxiety, from separation angst to extreme shyness to fear of thunderstorms or fireworks, are common behavior problems in dogs and cats, so much so that it was the subject of no fewer than six seminars at last month’s Western Veterinary Conference in Las Vegas.

“Separation anxiety is supposed to affect 15 percent of the nation’s 73.9 million dogs,” says Nicholas Dodman, a board-certified veterinary behaviorist and professor of animal behavior at Tufts School of Veterinary Medicine in North Grafton, Mass. Separation anxiety also affects cats, Dodman says, although it’s usually not as noticeable because cats tend to be less noisy and destructive in expressing their anxiety.

At Westwood Animal Hospital in Westwood, Kan., veterinarian Wayne Hunthausen, who is board-certified in animal behavior, says he sees a lot of dogs with separation anxiety and fireworks and thunderstorm phobias. Anxiety is an underlying issue in a significant portion of aggression problems as well, he says. “Anxiety problems are also fairly common in cats,” Hunthausen says. “Usually, fear of people is at the top of the list.”

How well do the products work?Just how much pheromone-based products help is debatable. While some dog trainers use them in classes to help keep canine students at ease, veterinary experts have mixed reactions. Dodman doesn’t believe they are very effective, although he concedes that Feliway may have a minor effect. Hunthausen says he sees some benefits when they’re used in conjunction with behavior modification.

How your behavior impacts your pet's

For mild anxiety, pheromones may work, but most cases will require more effort. Behavior modification and counter-conditioning methods vary depending on the problem, but some techniques are universal. The following tips may help, but the guidance of a qualified behaviorist is the most effective way to solve anxiety problems.

— Keep a diary of the behavior so you can figure out whether it occurs at a certain place or time or in response to a particular stimulus. Make note of any changes that may have caused the behavior, even if they seem so unremarkable as someone in the household getting a haircut.
— Provide a predictable daily routine so your pet always knows when to expect meals, walks or playtime.
— Ignore undesirable behavior instead of punishing it.
— Reward behavior you like, such as sitting, lying down or being calm or quiet, even if it’s not something you told the animal to do.
— Enrich your pet’s environment with more play, toys, training or other social interaction.“It really depends on the problem. My experience is that they’re less successful for thunderstorm phobias than they are for firework phobias, for some reason. Anxiety around people is where I probably have the best results,” Hunthausen says.

He especially likes them for use with older pets when there’s a concern about the liver’s ability to process drugs such as Xanax or Valium, and with cats, whose resistance to taking pills may limit what can be done therapeutically.

Board-certified veterinary behaviorist Gary Landsberg of Doncaster Animal Clinic in Thornhill, Ontario, Canada, says: “If I choose cases where I expect them to work, they’re usually fairly effective, and in cases where I am uncertain they’re going to work, then it’s more variable. If a dog has specific fears and anxieties, I use the pheromones in combination with a major behavior program. I seldom just dispense it and say, ‘See if this works.’ ”
Landsberg uses Feliway most successfully with cats that spray urine to mark their territory, as well as with cats that are anxious about changes in the home, such as a move, new people in the family or strangers coming over.

“I find that Feliway as a diffuser can help calm most cats sometimes, along with behavior therapy,” he says.
A disadvantage of the pheromone products is their cost. "It’s a little more expensive than medication in most cases," Hunthausen says. The upfront cost for the spray or diffuser ranges from $20 to $40, and refills are $15 to $20.

Digging for the root cause

How pheromones might actually work is a matter of conjecture. Because these synthetic pheromones are often used in concert with a behavior modification or counter-conditioning program, as in Hanko’s case, it’s possible that the pet is reacting more to the owner’s changed behavior or expectations than to the product itself.

When pheromones do appear to work, they usually do so within 3 to 10 days, although Hunthausen has seen a couple of almost immediate reactions in some animals. When a fearful reaction can be predicted, as in the case of fireworks on the Fourth of July or an upcoming car trip, Hunthausen recommends that pet owners start using the product at least 10 days beforehand.

Longtime Turkish Van owner and author of "Kittens for Dummies" Dusty Rainbolt of Lewisville, Texas, credits Feliway with keeping kitty hostilities at bay in her multi-cat household.

“I use it to help prevent territoriality,” she says. “It doesn’t stop it entirely because you can’t when you have this many cats, but it really tones it down.” The one time she ran out of it, she noticed an increase in urine marking until she was able to replenish her supply.

Rainbolt also finds Feliway effective for cats that don’t enjoy the car ride to the veterinary clinic. She sprays Feliway in the cat carrier 10 or 15 minutes before putting the cat inside it. She recommends using Feliway any time a cat faces a stressful situation: a new pet in the home, an owner bringing home a baby or a new boyfriend, or a pet sitter coming in while the owners are on vacation.

Could pheromone therapy help your pet? It’s possible, but you have to be willing to try to figure out why Misty or Max is anxious in the first place. Few cases of anxiety-related problems are successfully resolved without behavior therapy.

“There’s always a reason why the pet is doing what it’s doing,” Landsberg says. “If you don’t address the underlying cause, then you might not get the improvement you expect.”

Better behaved pets through chemistry?
Pheromone products may ease anxiety, but they’re not a panacea

How pheromones might actually work is a matter of conjecture. Because these synthetic pheromones are often used in concert with a behavior modification or counter-conditioning program, as in Hanko’s case, it’s possible that the pet is reacting more to the owner’s changed behavior or expectations than to the product itself.

When pheromones do appear to work, they usually do so within 3 to 10 days, although Hunthausen has seen a couple of almost immediate reactions in some animals. When a fearful reaction can be predicted, as in the case of fireworks on the Fourth of July or an upcoming car trip, Hunthausen recommends that pet owners start using the product at least 10 days beforehand.

Longtime Turkish Van owner and author of "Kittens for Dummies" Dusty Rainbolt of Lewisville, Texas, credits Feliway with keeping kitty hostilities at bay in her multi-cat household.

“I use it to help prevent territoriality,” she says. “It doesn’t stop it entirely because you can’t when you have this many cats, but it really tones it down.” The one time she ran out of it, she noticed an increase in urine marking until she was able to replenish her supply.

Rainbolt also finds Feliway effective for cats that don’t enjoy the car ride to the veterinary clinic. She sprays Feliway in the cat carrier 10 or 15 minutes before putting the cat inside it. She recommends using Feliway any time a cat faces a stressful situation: a new pet in the home, an owner bringing home a baby or a new boyfriend, or a pet sitter coming in while the owners are on vacation.

Could pheromone therapy help your pet? It’s possible, but you have to be willing to try to figure out why Misty or Max is anxious in the first place. Few cases of anxiety-related problems are successfully resolved without behavior therapy.

“There’s always a reason why the pet is doing what it’s doing,” Landsberg says. “If you don’t address the underlying cause, then you might not get the improvement you expect.”

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Both Shasta and I would like to wish you all a HAPPY THANKSGIVING! I am thankful for all the new people and friends I have met and the support and incouragement you have given to me. The fight against the BSL together and the love of our fur-kids and fur-kids EVERYWHERE!.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.



*hugs* Conners and Shasta

Pit bull owners bare their souls to fight Ontario's ban on dogs

What we would do for our dogs!!! I give all these ladies credit to bare themselves for the LOVE and FIGHT for the bullies! Hat's off to all of you!!! Here's the link to the story in the Ottawa Citizen.


Pit bull owners bare their souls to fight Ontario's ban on the dogs
Fundraising calendar features dog lovers in assorted states of undress
Iris Winston, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, October 06, 2006

An 82-year-old Ottawa woman is posing nude for a fundraising calendar. Her inspiration: the love of a pit bull.
Octogenarian Squibs Mer-cier appears unencumbered by clothes with her Staffordshire bull terrier, one of the breeds that falls under Ontario's ban of pit bull-type dogs. The calendar is to raise money for a legal challenge to the law.

Ms. Mercier is the only founding member of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada still living, let alone posing for pin-up pictures. In the calendar, she and 11 other members of the club appear wearing only broad smiles with their dogs and the occasional discreetly placed best-in-show rosette or flag.

From a new bride flanked by her two Staffordshire bull terriers, to a model in a bubble bath with her dogs on the edge of the tub, the photographs -- most of them by professional photographers -- speak of the warm relationship between the dogs and their owners.

The brainchild of club president Clive Wilkinson, the calendar attempts to heighten awareness of the plight of Staffordshire bull terriers and related breeds that fall under the umbrella of Ontario's Bill 132.

The McGuinty government's bill, which amended the Dog Owners' Liability Act, received royal assent in March 2005. It "prohibits individuals from owning, breeding, transferring, importing or abandoning pit bulls." The bill grandfathers current dogs and owners, but insists that the dogs be muzzled in public places.

"I'm certainly not prepared to muzzle my dogs," says Mrs. Mercier, as she pets her gentle, 13-year-old champion Staffordshire, Duchess. "I've had Staffies all my life. They're wonderful companions. This stupid and unfair law will make the breed extinct. We have to fight it. If we don't oppose the bill, they'll just move on to the next breed. It's not dogs they should be banning. It's bad owners."

The battle against the legislation, with high-profile lawyer Clayton Ruby for the defence, is before the courts. This, says Mrs. Mercier, is why raising funds in various ways, such as auctions, raffles and now calendars, is a priority.
"This money could have gone into doing good for animals in other ways, if we didn't have this fight on our hands," she says. "But we're not going away. You only lose when you give up."

The first 450 copies of the 2007 Beautiful Staffies and Their Ladies calendar quickly sold out. A new batch of the "baring it all against banning" calendar is available through the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada at www.staffordcanada.com.

Legal Defense New E-BAY Items

new e-bay items

It's time to bid!!
There are new e-bay items up for auction. Please check them out & bid generously.
Please cross-post widely!

A fun lap quilt called "There's a Dog on My Quilt", it is non-breed specific so send the link to all your dog friends!

A jean shirt with a logo that says it all ... I love My Staffie

A breed specific book

An unframed art print ... If anyone has more info on this print, it would be greatly appreciated. It was donated for our auction at the Specialty but no details were included

Happy bidding!

Dog credited with saving teen from fire

Dog Credited With Saving Teen From Fire
FORT MEYERS, Fla. (AP)

A pit bull who was recently adopted by a family after wandering onto a construction site may have saved a teen girl from a house fire on Friday.

Jerrica Seals, 17, was already safely out of the house by the time firefighters arrived, the News-Press of Fort Meyers reported.

"She called me screaming," said Leticia Vega, 36, the sister of Seals' boyfriend Javier Garcia, 23, who owns the home.

"She said the dog woke her up barking, jumped on the bed and bit her on the leg."

Seals was taken to the hospital for a checkup, but Garcia said she was going to be fine.

Deputy fire Chief Steve Clyatt said blaze appears to have been caused by a bad extension cord on a window air conditioner.

Vega said her oldest brother, Gabriel Garcia, found the dog while he was working.

"He didn't pay no mind to it," Vega said.

"He just kept working and the dog just stayed there so he brought it home. He doesn't usually bark. He's real friendly."
10/02/06 15:35 EDT

SBTCC's $1000 Challenge

SBTCC's $1000 Challenge

The Noel family, members of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada have put forth a challenge to other individuals, families or groups of dog lovers to donate $1000 to the legal challenge in the month of October.They started off this challenge with $1000. Since then Coleen & Clive Wilkinson, Mo Pyke & Matt Brierley and other members have stepped up, accepted this challenge and donated $1000 or more. All this in 2 days!

We are at a critical time for fundraising in this legal challenge and we can not stop. To get 100 individuals, families or groups to donate $1000 would help tremendously.

If you would like to accept the challenge you may go to
http:// www.staffordcanada.com/donations/index.html
and either donate directly through PayPal or you may make a cheque payable to "Belle Campeau - Legal Defence Fund" and mail it to:

Belle Severn
7339 Fourth Line Rd.
RR#4
Kemptville, ON
K0G 1J0

The SBTCC understands that not everyone is able to donate $1000. Another great way to support the legal challenge and get a great, fun gift in return is to donate $20 plus shipping to the SBTCC and get one of their "Beautiful Staffies and their Ladies" 2007 calendars.
http://www.staffordcanada.com/images2/Order%20Form.pdf

Please, please crosspost this email to any other email lists, yahoo groups, blogs, friends, family or just everyday dog loving people. We must get our message across, we must continue to fight.

Thank you to those who have donated, bought calendars and continue to fight.

Dog Owners Suitability Test and Training

In K9 News Magazine are these two articles. They want what we want in Canada and in the U.S.

Dog Attacks: Dog Owner Suitability Tests are the Obvious Answer

We're off again. The News of the World (Britain's top selling Sunday newspaper) has joined its sister title, The Sun in calling for a change to dog legislation.
They are calling for owners of dogs who attack people, whether on their own property or not to be liable for criminal prosecution.

Whilts this is not exactly the same stance as The Sun, who are calling specifically for the muzzling of Rottweilers at home and in public, at least it appears that this is what they were calling for (you can read it here.), both newspapers are keen to see 'devil dogs' and their owners legislated against.

Both newspapers are calling for something to happen in the style of we want change, we want it now and we want children protected. We agree, change is needed. But change for change's sake won't prevent a single death or future dog attack. There is a solution, both newspapers have missed it.

The thing is, this whole debate is rapidly turning into a 'them and us' situation when in reality the dog owning community want the same thing. Nobody wants to see people injured as a result of a dog attack but surely prevention has got to be better than cure.

The News of The World's campaign is supported by the views of Clare Carey and Mark Lawrence, the parents of little Harvey Lawrence the boy who received horrendous injuries when he was attacked by a Rottweiler last week.

Clare stormed:

"Dangerous animals in zoos are kept behind bars. Dogs like Rottweilers have the same kind of characteristics so even putting them on a lead is not enough. They're stronger than a person. "We've seen the damage this dog's teeth did to Harvey's skull and his face and I wouldn't want any other parent to have to go through this. "Children shouldn't have to live in fear of animals. We must do something to protect them. "The law needs to be changed. People who own dogs need to take responsibility."

Comparing "dogs like Rottweilers" as having similar characteristics to dangerous zoo animals is understandable in part. In many ways, they do. They are capable of delivering fatal attacks, physically they can indeed be stronger than many people and yes, they are animals. They are not wild animals though and belong to a group of animals who are collectively known as our best friend, the Rottweiler is not an exmption from that description. There are many reasons for this.

The main difference between animals in zoos and dogs is that canines were domesticated and are absolutely predisposed to accept training and psychological conditioning delivered by humans. Punishing the people who chose to ignore their responsibility to train their dogs is fine (see how much we're still agreeing here).

But at what point does the punishment actually prevent the attack in the first place? Surely this has to be the aim because unlike 99.9% of crimes, it's rare that the owner of an attacking dog actually wanted the crime to happen, they didn't chose for it to happen and they certainly don't profit from it when it occurs. Negligence is the issue and the way to combat negligence is by demanding that owners are aware of their responsibilities.

A dog ownership suitability test would ensure that dog owners knew of their legal and social responsibilities. A dog ownership suitability test would make certain that would-be dog owners were required to understand dog law, learn how the dangerous dogs act relates to them, understand how dog body language works, realise how powerful certain breeds are and what makes them tick. A dog ownership suitability test WOULD prevent dog attacks, WOULD go a long way toward stopping the wrong people owning dogs that were unsuitable for their level of experience or lifestyle and WOULD guarantee that all dog owners were equipped with at the very least, a basic level of understanding of what their responsibilities were to their dog and to society.

The dangerous dogs act is quite unique in that it is a piece of legislation, a much criticised piece of legislation at that, where the group of people it's aimed at (dog owners) widely don't know what's in it and the specific group it legislates against (dogs) can't actually read it. The truth is, the dangerous dogs act could be the finest piece of law making in British legal history but would still be rendered next to useless if the people it's meant for don't know what's in it and the section of society it was brought in for can't read the thing.

Given that we have taken dogs to new levels of achievement over the past 100 years - think guide dogs, cancer detection dogs, Police dogs, drug detection dogs, bomb detection dogs (Rottweilers playing a role in many of these disciplines), it still remains unlikely that we'll ever be able to teach man's best friend to read and understand the complexities of the British legal system. With that in mind the only sensible way to ensure that the dangerous dogs act offers a benefit to society is to try and think of a system that obligates dog owners to understand it. How can we do that? A dog ownership suitability test or, 'Doggie Driving Licence' would do exactly that.

A dog ownership suitability test would take care of this and then some. If dog owners still don't understand their responsibilities after that and their dogs are attacking people, fouling the streets or causing a nuisance to innocent members of society then yes, let's see them prosecuted as criminals.

If we didn't have driving tests, theory exams and laws of the road legislating for speeding, dangerous driving, understanding traffic signals etc, laws which are understood by the vast majority of the people they were designed to apply to, drivers, and are there not just to protect the people behind the wheel but other members of society who inevitably come into contact with them, would we honestly be surprised if accidents occur as a result of sheer ignorance/negligence? Seems illogical that we don't seek to apply the same theory to dog owners.

Breed specific legislation will not stop people dying and being injured as a result of dog attacks. Muzzling orders will not stop people dying and being injured as a result of dog attacks. Prosecuting negligent dog owners whose dogs injure or kill is fine in theory but it's still retrospective, somebody has still been killed or attacked. Let's try and prevent dog attacks, prevent abuse of dogs as a result of owner negligence and let's make something positive come out of a tragic week. Dog ownership suitability tests are the prevention, criminalisation is only the cure.

From the K9 Magazine The Dog Lovers Blog

Muzzle Them, Ban Them, Destroy Them - Why Not Just Train Them?

September 28th, 2006 by Ryan

When they get it right on animals (and they often do) we’re the first inline to pat them on the back and pay credit to Britain’s largest selling daily newspaper. But just lately they’ve got it so wrong something needs to be said.

The Sun’s campaign to highlight animal cruelty was noble. They dedicated entire front pages to the issue of animal neglect and campaigned to stamp out cruelty. They are a largely influential newspaper.

In the wake of the two tragic Rottweiler attacks over the past week The Sun have been slavishly sticking to the good old tabloid principle of using language such as ‘devil dogs’, ‘raging beasts’ and so on. Today especially, The Sun have got it totally and utterly wrong. Their stance will achieve nothing for the victims of dog attacks and certainly nothing for dogs.

Today The Sun tells us their position on ‘devil dogs’. “Muzzle Them”, they bellow. Reading further it seems the “them” in this case are Rottweilers.

© Sun Newspaper, Sept 28 2006
“BRITAIN is a nation of dog lovers.

But even those who love their pets more than their fellow humans must accept there is a limit to the risk society can tolerate.

The shocking death of tragic tot Cadey-Lee Deacon, mauled to death by two raging rottweilers, makes the blood run cold.

Such deaths are mercifully rare. Attacks are not.

In the last few weeks alone rottweilers have savaged a two-year-old toddler and a girl aged 12.

These powerful guard dogs have jaws like a steel trap. They are highly-intelligent, territorial — and domineering when inadequately trained. Like a car in the hands of an inexperienced or incompetent owner, they can be lethal.

To make matters worse, some unscrupulous breeders deliberately produce aggressive “devil dogs”, favoured by saddos to project a macho image.
Rottweilers are exempt from the list of breeds banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

This loophole-riddled law also fails to cover dog attacks on private property.

For Cadey-Lee, any action is too late. But the government cannot sit back and allow another child — or adult — to be torn apart by these eight-stone beasts.

It must follow the example of countries like Germany — and order them to be muzzled”

So, given that both of these attacks happened on their owner’s private property are we to assume The Sun wants all Rottweilers muzzled all of the time rather than just in public?

What is The Sun’s view on Rottweiler crosses? How do they want to legislate against dogs who are ‘a bit’ Rottweilerish?

What about the dogs of a similar size, all of whom are equally capable of causing serious damage to people, the Doberman, the Anatolian Shepherd, the Leonberger, the GSD, the Belgian Shepherd, the Japanese Akita and what about the nation’s favourite dog, the Labrador - you know - the one responsible for a fully grown, adult woman who had to receive the world’s first face transplant this year? What about them?

Should ALL dogs simply be muzzled at all times, surely that’s the logic at play here?

No, this is the EXACT type of kneejerk response that would solve absolutely NOTHING.

Pit Bulls were banned - whether you believe rightly or wrongly - so surely we should be safer from dog attack, yes? Well no actually, Home Office statistics reveal dog attacks on the up and the reason dangerous dogs are on the agenda again is because a child has died.

So let’s muzzle the Rottweiler. What happens then?

Well, apart from subjecting the many thousands of Rottweilers who haven’t done a damn thing to a single person and have been found guilty by association , condemned to a life of misery, walking around with their muzzles on 24/7, they would inevitably become a less popular breed. Owners who want a large, sturdy, reliable dog to share their home with and yes, offer a degree of home security, would find themselves opting for a dog who they didn’t have to witness living in misery thanks to a muzzling order and who wouldn’t be the cause of abuse from misguided non dog owners, convinced that Rottweiler ownership is only one notch worse than paedophillia. Other breeds will take their place in the popularity stakes.

Let’s take ourselves forward 20 years. No more Rottweilers, no more Pit Bulls. We’re all completely safe from dog attacks now surely? Of course we’re not and it’s ridiculous, incompetent and downright opportunistic to think otherwise. Where the Rottweiler once sat will be the Mastiff, the American Bulldog, the Ridgeback or other dog of similar size and stature. Take your pick, which is the one who’ll be responsible for the next title of ‘devil dog’?

We need education not legislation. We need to ensure that this vicious cycle of the wrong dogs getting into the hands of the wrong owners stops. We need to ensure people not only fully understand their obligations as a dog owner (of ANY type) we need to ensure people ARE DUTY BOUND to comply with their responsibilities. We need a dog ownership screening test.

We can legislate to high heaven. We can get down to a situation where we’re only allowed to keep dogs of a certain size. We can all just decide that the risk of keeping dogs is to high. Afterall one death, as absolutely tragic, appaling and stomach churning as it is, is an isolated incident.

If dogs were killing people week in week out, we’d be in a different position. The fact is, they’re not. Electricity is though, cars are, smoking is, drinking is - should we ban it all or should we take the view that, by and large, these things co-exist with us in normal society and in many cases they enance people’s lives. Yes, there are dangers. Yes, lack of care can cause accidents to happen. But simply banning or imposing ill though out restrictions won’t cure the problem and we’ll have learned nothing. Let’s get this one right. There is an opportunity to make something positive happen from a truly tragic week. Dog ownership tests WILL have a positive effect. Banning orders, muzzling and breed legislation wont. We’ve already proved that haven’t we?

Dangerous Dogs?

A fantastic interview on Channel 10 News regarding misinformed media. Watch the video on Dangerous Dogs?.

Pit bull attacked by a bear

In the Ottawa Sun.com comes this tid bit of B.S. journalism that adds to the hype and hatred of the bullie breeds. Jeff Morroson just HAD to add his final remark to get his two cents worth in.

PIT BULL ATTACKED BY BEAR:

A Pennsylvanian man let his pit bull outside to play recently and it was viciously attacked by a black bear.

The dog's owner, Jay Thompson, said the 2-year-old pit bull suffered a shattered left femur, a dislocated hip, and is being treated in a nearby animal hospital.

Thompson knew something was awry when he let the dog out and it headed across the street, barking and growling. A bear had been spotted earlier in the neighbourhood.

The Habitat for Hounds organization has pledged $100 toward the dog's medical bills, which are $1,000.

Now don't get me wrong here folks, I love most dogs, but it is ironic that with all the pit bull attacks on humans, one of these killer pets finally met its match.

Keep your dog warm and comfy

What a fantastic way to keep your best friend(s) warm and comfy and help out with the legal defense fund too. I can't wait until Shasta's comes in.

T-Shirts for your Dogs!!!

*PLEASE CROSSPOST WIDELY*

Louise from http://www.allforpaws.ca/ has kindly created a doggy t-shirt for the DLCC and $5.00 from each shirt will be going to the legal challenge fund!

The t-shirts come in navy blue and pink and are available in 3 different sizes, 2X, 3X, and 4X.

T-shirts are readily available at All Creatures Great & Small, (Cobourg and Peterborough), Critter Jungle (Ottawa).

T shirts are also available on line at http://www.allforpaws.ca/.

Phone orders are also accepted at 1-800-747-7135.

The price for each t-shirt is $25.00.

Pictures are attached!!!

This is perfect timing as the weather is getting cooler and we all know that bullies need a bit of extra warmth in the fall and winter!!

These shirts were specifically fitted for larger dogs so they fit the bully breeds really well.

Check them out and remember to tell your doggy friends about them too!!

2nd Annual K9 Fun Day!

2nd ANNUAL K9 FUN DAY!

EVERYONE WELCOME

VENDORS, BAR-B-Q

CANINE GOOD NEIGHBOUR TESTING (fee)*

DOGSMART PERFORMANCE TEAM SHOW,

RALLY-O FUN MATCH novice to advanced (fee)

*INFORMATION SESSIONS FOR PET OWNERS

Canine Massage 10 min for $10.00 AND MORE!

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 15 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM

MACKENZIE CATTLE DOG TRAINING CENTER

5776 11th Line New Tecumseth (near Beeton, On)

Map to K9 Fun Day

905-729-4887

Hwy #27 north of Hwy #8811th Line West

Follow the Signs

*Pre-book CGN testing by contacting: events@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org

Or Call Lori (705) 435-3481

Canadian Kennel Club certificate test – conducted by a CKC CGN Evaluator

100% of all funds raised at K-9 Fun Day go to the legal defense fund!

Calling all Dog Owners

Here's an easy way to help out in the legal defence fund.

http://www.goodpooch.com/home.htm

The founder of goodpooch.com is asking all dog owners to donate $1 to the legal defence fund (Banned Aid).

2007 Beautiful Staffies and their Ladies Calendar

2007 Beautiful Staffies and their Ladies Calendar

Don't forget to order your calendar!
Visit www.staffordcanada.com to order your calendar now.
The holidays coming and for a $20 donation to the legal fund you can have a unique gift to give out to friends and family.

Stop Discriminating Against Pit Bulls

Again in The Huntville Forrester comes more comments from Jack van der Meer's letter against the Pit bull puppies.

Stop Discriminating Against Pit Bulls
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Re: Pit bull pups deserve a chance, letter to the editor, September 20.

Thank you Christie for speaking up on behalf of the Huntsville Animal Shelter and for all animals. Thank you to the Huntsville Animal Shelter for taking over the responsibility of the many irresponsible ones that abandon and abuse their dogs. Thank you.

I know of many rescuers that specialize in adopting out pit bulls and I can tell with confidence that the only problem they ever had with any dog is that the adoption was not compatiblewith , for example, the lifestyle of the owner. None of these dogs have ever made the headlines. Mr. van der Meer needs a dose of reality. But if ever you are looking for a pit bull expert, here he is.

It is estimated that approximately less than two per cent of dogs of any breed are ever involved in a biting or mauling incident. Most bites are not serious enough to even report. The fact is, all dogs have teeth and can bite, as Christie explained. It really gets me when some ‘expert’ comes along and downplays the years of experience and knowledge of those who deal with dogs every day. It is very disrespectful.

Many people base their opinions of pit bulls through media reports and particularly on a report from the Centre for Disease Control. They made a report many years ago focusing on pit bulls (not even mentioning purebreds) that they have verbally and in writing admitted was grossly inaccurate.

In Ontario there are fewer than 100,000 purebred dogs that have been listed under Bill 132. The bill was cleverly crafted to include as many dogs as possible. Ontario’s pit bull ban is nothing more than racial profiling, as well as a means of stripping a minority of their rights.

Finally, pit bulls (if that is what they are to be known as) have been dubbed ‘nanny dogs’ for the past 150 years. They were called that because they were, and still are, particularly good with children. Those who focus their attention on dog discrimination need to take a really hard look in the mirror.

Linda CareyHuntsville
Reader Comments (Post Yours)

Sep 27, 2006 at 2:23 PM
STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST DOG OWNERS
As long as people believe that breed specific legislation is discrimination against dogs, we will continue to project this illusion. Lets be perfectly clear. Breed specific legislation (BSL) discriminates against dog owners based solely upon the physical appearance of the dog that he or she chooses to own. The dog owner is the true focus of BSL. The dog is the property of it's owner. The dog is the unwitting pawn that is used by government to restrict dog ownership by breed upon the human citizen owner. All laws are written for human beings. We are the only sapient creatures who can read, understand, apply, and function to any law that has ever been, or will ever be enacted. Let us utilise our great intellect, and put a halt to the taking of our most ancient, and traditional property.

All law both in Canada, and the USA is based upon tradition, and upon English Common Law. The human tradition of dog ownership is lost in the dim reaches of time, but can be archaeologically traced back well over thirty-five THOUSAND years!!! Let us hold tightly to our human traditions lest they be ripped from us one tradition at a time, until we are slaves of an over-burgeoning government that not only controls our animal ownership, but also our diet, our wardrobe apparel, our very existence.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM BANNED AID - PLEASE CROSSPOST

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM BANNED AID - PLEASE CROSSPOST

Ontario.

Twice the size of Texas.

Three times the size of Germany.

Five times the size of the United Kingdom.

Home to a breed-specific legislative ban covering the largest geo-political area in the world.

A ban that discriminates not by action or deed, but by physical appearance.

A ban that targets not only "pitbulls", American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers", but haunts *ANY* pure-or-crossbred canine bearing a substantial physical resemblance to one of the aforementioned. The 2004 brainchild of the province's Attorney General, Michael Bryant, the now-infamous Bill 132 was conceived as a vote-grabbing safety measure; a poorly designed and ill-appointed law geared to target the public's visceral fear of dog attacks. Implemented in August of 2005, retribution against innocent canines and their owners was swift.

Walking your pet without a muzzle now means risking seizure without warrant. Visitors and residents alike travelling without certified documentation face the spectre of breed (mis)-identification looming around every corner.

Pets showing natural protective tendencies within the boundaries of their home turf may now be turned in on the suspicion of being 'menacing'. This last is particularly frightening; simple barking at passers-by can be interpreted as 'threatening behaviour' by control officers with no training in either animal behaviour or breed identification. Failure to pass muster on any of the above can and will result in a one-way trip to the official's choice of humane society, pound or research facility. There are few second chances.

This ban has raised both the conscience and ire of dog lovers from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island . It's not just a 'pit-bull' issue. It's a Rottweiler issue, a Doberman issue. It's about Boxers and Bullmastiffs, Bull Terriers, Neapolitan Mastiffs and Boston Terriers, Great Danes and Vizslas... are you surprised? These are but a handful of breeds that have come under scrutiny and endured public censure following the implementation and subsequent over-broad interpretation of A.G. Bryant's Bill.

From the beginning, concerned groups and individuals questioned the feasibility of a legal challenge - a challenge directed at the violation of constitutional rights, yet still allowing for the punishment of those who willfully put animals and people in harm's way. Prominent trial and constitutional lawyer Clayton Ruby was immediately retained.

With the help of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Canada, the Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Terrier Club, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada and Advocates for the Underdog, a coalition was formed including the Dog Legislation Council of Canada and aptly named "Banned-Aid". This group was to play a prominent role in the ensuing months, bringing the plight of Ontario's dogs to those who otherwise might never have considered the gravity of the situation. Their determination paid off; the spring of 2006 saw a trial date set, and on May 15th, 16th and 18th, Justice T. Herman heard final arguments from both sides in Ontario's Superior Court.

The battle, however, is not quite over. Government-initiated delays have resulted in the near-doubling of our legal fees, which have long passed initial "guesstimates" and are closing in on the 1/2 million mark. In this we are running out of time. Generous time allowances by Clayton Ruby's offices have merely slowed the inevitable, that being we *MUST* come up with $ 100,000 in two weeks' time for this case to continue.

The importance of being present to rebut this new motion cannot be overestimated. Lacking an opposing legal presence gives government lawyers carte blanche while countering from our side greatly increases the chances of any further introductions being struck down as frivolous. Ruby strongly believes this attempt to be a last-gasp 'smoke screen' effort by our opposition, carefully orchestrated to bring us to our financial knees. We cannot let this happen. If we have come this far, it is in large part due to the faith of our members, friends and allies - individuals who possess the same gritty determination hallmarking the breeds this Bill seeks to eliminate forever.

We are so very, very close. For the latest updates and news briefs, we urge you to visit the Dog Legislation Council of Canada website at:
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/

If you believe - as we do - that victory is a mere leash-length away, then please help by donating to the Ontario Legal Challenge of Bill 132 through the following agents:
Banned-Aid Coalition - http://www.bannedaid.com/

Send a cheque or money order payable to Banned Aid to:
Cathy Prothro
National Secretary/Treasurer - Banned Aid Coalition
351 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth NS B2Y 3S4
Mark a cheque "Banned Aid - In Trust' on the memo line; make payable to "Ruby and Edwardh" and send to:
Ruby and Edwardh
11 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, ON M5R 1B2

No donation is too small, no suggestion unimportant. Each and every contribution is humbly appreciated - indeed, more than can be possibly expressed. We know the dogs this saves would thank you if they could.

Respectfully
Banned Aid Coalition
351 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth NS B2S 3Y4
Canada

Pit bull ban punishes dogs for bad owners

In FOXNews.com comes another compelling arguement of Pit bull Ban (breed bans) punishes dogs because of bad owners.

Pit Bull Ban Punishes Dogs for Bad Owners
Monday, September 25, 2006
By Radley Balko

This is Rufus. Last February, Rufus was named best in show at the Westminster Kennel Club.

With his football-shaped head, muscular haunches, and powerful jaws, Rufus might, under the right circumstances, look pretty intimidating. He's harmless, of course, as are the vast majority of bull terriers with responsible owners.

Unfortunately, there are a growing number of cities in North American that want nothing to do with Rufus. In addition to several smaller towns, Kansas City, Mo., recently followed the lead of Denver, Colo., and Ontario, Canada, in instituting a ban on "pit bulls."

Any animal meeting the "pit bull" description found in the city will either be turned over to shelters outside the city or, more likely, euthanized.

These types of breed-specific prohibitions are a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but the most glaring is that the most common target of these laws — the "pit bull" — isn't really a breed at all but rather a generic name given to dogs with with features we've come to associate with a certain type of dog with certain aggressive characteristics. The "pit bull" very generally refers to the American Staffordshire Terrier breed, but can include a number of breeds with similar features, including bull terriers like Rufus, and just about any mutt with traces of bulldog, mastiff, or bloodhound crossed with any breed of terrier.

Test yourself — see if you can find the pit bull on this page.

When she was a puppy, I was repeatedly warned that one of my own dogs might be mistaken for a pit bull should I move to an area where they're banned. She's the sweetest, most harmless dog I've ever known, unless you happen to be a rug or a pair of shoes. I once came home to finder her curled up in the cable guys' lap.

The New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell has written about research showing that pit bull-ish dogs don't deserve their reputation. Gladwell found a study from a research group in Georgia that has so far tested more than 25,000, measuring stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in interaction with people. Gladwell writes, "Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund."

The president of the group said pit bulls even test unusually well with children.

Dogs commonly called pit-bulls do have unusually strong jaws, a characteristic commonly cited by advocates of eradicating the dogs. The American Staffordshire Terrier is also unusually smart, driven, and determined — all of which make it a challenging dog to own, particularly for new dog owners. But there are many breeds of dog that can deliver a nasty bite when provoked. And herding dogs are even more difficult to own and train than so-called pit-bulls, particularly for people with children (they sometimes nip at the heels of children in an effort to corral them).

The attention directed at pit bulls seems to be more due to their trendiness and their popularity with disreputable owners, not to any unique aggressiveness in the dogs' genetics. Just a few years ago, the tough-guy dog du jour was the equally powerful Rottweiler. Dobermans and German Shepherds have also done their time in the spotlight as the pariah breed.

The problem then is with the owners, not with the dogs. Ban pit bulls, and the riffraff that breeds and trains them for nefarious purposes will simply move on to another breed.

The law in Kansas City, however, is particularly dumb — though it does aptly show just how misguided the thinking among public officials on this issue can be.

Apparently, the city has instituted an "amnesty period," during which well-intentioned owners can turn their pups over for euthanization without facing a fine.

To see the folly in that proposal, consider two hypothetical pit bull owners.

Owner A is a family who had the misfortune of picking a pit bull from the pet store, breeder, or pound. They've raised the dog as a pet, and it lives in a happy, loving home. It's harmless. Owner B is a drug dealer who bought a pit bull to protect his contraband. He has trained the dog to attack. The dog, obviously, is vicious and dangerous.

Which dog owner is more likely to have respect for the law, and take advantage of the amnesty period? Whose dog is more likely to be turned over and euthanized?

Kansas City has created a scenario where most of the harmless pit bulls in the city will be destroyed, rather foolishly leaving mostly the dangerous ones. Of course, that result will only reinforce the wrongheaded notion that all dogs that look like pit bulls are inherently violent and aggressive.

Ingrid Newkirk, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, actually supports breed-specific bans, including bans on pit bulls. Her reasoning, however, is revealing. In an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle last year, she likened pit bull legislation to gun control, which she also supports. That's rather appropriate. Both policies are misguided, and penalize responsible owners for the sins of criminal owners.

To borrow a phrase from the gun rights movement, when pit bulls are criminalized, only criminals will own pit bulls.

Pit bull Ban: Back it with cash Queen's Park left cities on hook for cost of enforcement

In the Peterbourough Examiner it shows how the Ontario goverment made a law, yet wouldn't help to reinforse it and why each municipality does things differently.

Why is this becoming an issue now doesn't make sense as we had to fight the London's proposed bylaw for trying to stick outrages fees and fines to the responsible, registered bullie owners with the full cost and even more so.

Some of the Ontario cities and towns were not so harsh on their citizens, but London was a city that decided to take it's own fight against the bullie owners past what the law was enforcing...only Londoners fought back.

PIT BULL BAN: Back it with cash Queen’s Park left cities on hook for cost of enforcement
By Examiner Staff Editorial - Friday, September 22, 2006

Maybe the cities and towns that are now stuck with the cost of Ontario’s pit bull ban should have seen it coming.

When Attorney General Michael Bryant announced the ban last year, a news release stated that “The McGuinty government is making our communities safer.”

It didn’t say the McGuinty government would be paying for the privilege.

A province-wide ban would be more efficient than a patchwork of hundreds of different bylaws that Ontario municipalities would have passed on their own, Bryant said at the time.

However, there was no evidence cities were about to jump on the ban bandwagon. Peterborough city council had discussed some form of pit bull control in the past but had always backed off.

Part of the reason was concern about whether municipalities had the authority to ban one type of dog, but there were also questions about the cost of enforcement.

The authority issue was taken care of a year ago when the Liberal government amended the Dog Owners’ Liability Act.

Those who already owned pit bulls must keep them leashed and muzzled in public.

No new pit bulls can be bred here or brought into the province.

The question of who pays was also taken care of, indirectly.

The province didn’t make any money available, which means local authorities pay.

In Peterborough, as in most cities, that means local taxpayers.

Brad Algar, general manager of the Peterborough Humane Society, says it costs an average $250 for every stray pit bull (the legislation lumps several types of dogs and mixed breed under that label) that is caught, held for the mandatory 10 days and then destroyed.

In the first year, 10 dogs were scooped up at a total cost of $2,500.

While that may not seem like a lot of money, the Humane Society runs on a very tight budget.

It is contracted by the city to pick up and deal with stray dogs and cats, run the animal shelter and handle cruelty to animal cases.

It relies heavily on volunteers but still struggles to stay within its $205,000 annual operating budget.

The financial crunch is made worse by another new law requiring that all dog bite cases be prosecuted by the Crown attorney’s office, rather than city prosecutors.

A backlog in the criminal courts is delaying those cases.

That means more time for the Humane Society to house and feed the dogs involved, and more costs.

Algar, who wants the province to accept its responsibility, is not asking for a lot of new money.

The society is attempting to enforce Bryant’s ban with only one extra animal control officer.

If the province were really serious about getting these “ticking time bombs” out of communities it would be paying for extra dog catchers, at least until the pit bull population starts to decrease significantly.

But when the City of Toronto made that case, the province declined to bite.

Last spring Toronto city councillors turned down a request from its animal services department for nearly $530,000 to hire 10 new staff to police the ban.

When the city turned to Queen’s Park, the response was that enforcement costs would be low because people are generally law-abiding.

Run that logic out to its conclusion and cities wouldn’t need police forces.

MPP Jeff Leal, a Liberal, says he will press the province to see that local animal enforcement agencies get the funding they need.

If not, the pit bull ban will be one more case of the white knights at Queen’s Park riding to the rescue of local municipalities, then leaving a bill when they ride away.

Sue me, St. John's mayor tells owners of attack dogs

Yes! Yes! They are finally getting it! Go after the irresponsible OWNERS!!!

Sue me, St. John's mayor tells owners of attack dogs
CBC News

St. John's Mayor Andy Wells says he's prepared to face lawsuits over a city crackdown on aggressive dogs, urging staff to "put the damn dog down" if it seems dangerous.

"We're going to go after them and try to get those dogs," said Wells on Monday night as he responded to a
weekend incident in which two pit bulls attacked another dog in the city.


St. John's Mayor Andy Wells said a small number of 'idiots' and 'fools' are responsible for dog attacks.(CBC)

I've told our staff that whenever we get an animal that they think is dangerous, then — as far as I'm concerned — put the damn dog down," Wells, who owns several dogs himself, told CBC News.

"The owner can take us to court. Let the courts decide what our liability is. We've served the public interest."
The owner of the pit bulls left the scene of the attack — near Quidi Vidi Lake, in the east end of St. John's — without taking responsibility for what had happened.


Dog trainer Glenn Redmond said owners, not breeds, are the key ingredient in dog attacks.(CBC)

Sue Martin said she panicked when she saw the two pit bulls attack her pet Misty, an Australian shepherd.

"We spent the next three or four minutes just trying to get his dogs to let go of her, and believe you me, they were not going to let go," she said.

Give higher fines to owners, trainer urges

Dog trainer Glenn Redmond, who spoke for the SPCA as the agency sponsored a forum on aggressive dogs on Monday night, said there are no bad breeds — just bad owners.

Redmond said irresponsible dog owners must face harsher penalties, such as high fines.

"We can't save every dog that has been led down a wrong path, but we can stop a second dog from being led down the same path by the same owner," Redmond said.

More than 200 people attended the SPCA's meeting, which was scheduled before the latest attack took place.

Wells said the people who need to hear the message of taking responsibility of one's pets were not there.

'I have to question the mentality, the mindset, of a human being who'd want to have those types of dogs, that are a threat to other animals and other people.'-St. John's Mayor Andy Wells

"I have to question the mentality, the mindset, of a human being who'd want to have those types of dogs, that are a threat to other animals and other people," said Wells.

"This was a great seminar. The problem is, the wrong people are here," he said.

"[It's] the idiots, the fools and the non-competents that cause all the problems."

City searching for pit bulls' owner

Redmond said the SPCA would like to see several reforms, including a ban on chaining dogs up, which he says can make an animal more aggressive in the long run.

"First thing, we would like to see a ban on tethering," he said.

"Statistically, they say a tethered dog is more dangerous than a roaming pack of dogs.… There' s so many dogs here of unknown temperament."

Meanwhile, Wells said city officials are working hard to identify the owner of the pit bulls that attacked on Sunday.

He said they have narrowed down their search to a small number of owners.

Shasta's message to Brutus

Look what Mommy bought me at Auntie Em's. They are both suppose to be around the neck, but I like them better like this. After all, a girl should always keep her hinney covered right! BOL



I feel like I should do ballet.



Would any doggies out there like to dance with me...Brutus???

*woof* Shasta

One of Toronto's touching Vigil Speeches

I'm sorry, this is coming late to you but you know my health has kept me behind. Em has given me permission to post her speech at the Vigil. I hope you reading it brings you closer to the hearts of many that feel strongly against what Bill 132 has done to Ontario. Now for Em's speech:

I am Emily Ugarenko, for the past year I have had the honour of being the London Ontario Representative for Advocates for the Underdog. Tonight I want to share some thoughts and words of encouragement as a volunteer, rescuer and advocate for all dogs!

I would first like to talk about compliance, abiding by the stipulations, or shall I say restrictions imposed by Bill 132. According to the law, any dog which is classified as a “Pitbull”, purebred, or a mixed breed bearing substancial physical characteristics or resemblance to a restricted breed, must be leashed and muzzled when in public. A muzzle that covers the mouth of the dog, that is humane, that is well fitted, without interfering with the breathing, panting or vision or ability to drink. And a leash attached to a collar or harness, at a length of no more than 1.8 meters.

I have no doubt all of us have seen dogs who appear to be of a restricted breed appearance out and about not in compliance of the law. Unmuzzled but on leash, muzzled but offleash, or flat out unmuzzled and off leash. Sadly, none of those situations are acceptable by the terms of this legislation. They are flat out illegal and punishable not only by a heafty fine, but with the life of the dog.

Many of us are outraged, upset and concerned when we happen across such a situation and with good reason. Some people are approachable, receptive to the cold hard facts. Others are not. It only takes a split second, a plain clothed officer, a complaint of a stranger.

It is our responsibility to keep our dogs safe! We can’t explain to them why they must wear a muzzle or why they can no longer romp with their friends in the park, but for the time being compliance is what will keep them from tragedy.

Secondly, I’d like to touch on the subject of rescue for dogs affected by Bill 132. For shelters, organizations and individuals it has been a difficult year. Pet rescue in general is challenging at best, but for the rescue and rehoming of pitbull and dogs assumed to be pitbull mixes based on appearance the challenge is that much greater. I look out at the candles and the flowers placed in memory of those we have needlessly lost, and my heart aches. NO dog is safe from this vague law. There simply aren’t the funds and resources to reach the needs of BSL affected canines. The odds are not in our favour, but ultimately it is not us, but most literally the dogs that loose.

According to Bill 132 all affected dogs were to be sterilized by October 29th 2005 (if of suitable age) and dogs considered grandfathered at the appropriate age in order to be fully complaint with the law (other than the exceptions stated directly in the legislation) No more pitbull type dogs are to be born, and all born after November 27th 2005 are to be sent out of province, euthanized or sent to research facilities under the ontario pound act. Yet shelters and rescues still deal with young dogs and puppies on a regular basis. Be it ignorance or an accident, the burden is heavy for all those involved in now trying to save that life.

A 5 week old puppy was put down yesterday solely based on appearance. A stray, an orphan, a tiny soul who deserved a chance, but he was blacklisted because he might have been a pitbull. Never having the opportunity to mature into a dog that perhaps looks nothing like a restricted breed. It happens, believe me. Advocates for the Underdog saved a litter of 12 pitbull type looking pups last summer, and today having now celebrated their first birthdays and they are all 80-90-odd pound Labrador retriever looking dogs. Had then ended up elsewhere, their fate could have been quite different.

I’m sure many of us here tonight have been involved in similar situations, you know what its like to try and move heaven and earth to try and find a spot for a dog. Not every one even realizes that options, albeit limited, are available. But rescues will continue to try to do what they can. And in the darkness of senseless death and discrimination we must remember to focus on and celebrate each and every life saved.

It has been a year since we all gathered here, to stand together and support the challenge of ending Breed Specific Legislation in Ontario.

This past year has brought the opportunity to meet many wonderful dog owners, volunteers, rescuers and along with it just as many amazing dogs. There is this whole network of friends, support groups and shoulders to lean on that have formed not only in Ontario but across the country and abroad. While it is very apparent that no good has come of Bill 132, the pubic has not been any safer nor have we seen a reduction in dogs bites or injury (from any breed). What HAS happened however is that people with a passion for their dogs and and animal welfare in general have rallied together to advocate and educate. Spending time and money, volunteering for dog transports, giving up a little more space in their homes for one more dog in need and have loving taught their dog to accept a muzzle so they can continue to enjoy an active life in the community.

For every piece of negative press there has been fueled by hype and stereotypes there has been at least twice as many pieces of positive press albeit tucked in the middle pages somewhere, to counter the negativity. For each person who chooses to be ignorant to the law and gamble with their dog’s life, there are groups like the pitbull co-op who proudly walk their dogs legally and responsibly. Yes the shelters along with emails and voicemails are overflowing with displaced, surrendered and strayed pitbulls and restricted breed mixes, but there are those who volunteer in those shelters, foster in their homes and continue to tirelessly fundraise to repeal the law.

Owning a restricted breed is tragically now not considered normal dog ownership, it is hard, it is sad, it is difficult and down right frustrating at times. But to every single last one of you who holds their head high and proud for the dogs you own, know and love we thank you! We thank you for not giving up on these dogs or giving up on yourselves and the ability to find courage in this adversity. We thank you for participating in events like this, showing your support. Because together we are strong! Individuals, organizations, rescuers and volunteers, wherever you fit in you are invaluable to us and the dogs . . . thank you.

Emily U.a.k.a. "Auntie Em" http://www.auntieems.org/