DEFEND-A-BULL Blog

Friday, September 27, 2013

We're More Than Just Your Local Webstore, We're Your Friends...

_____________________________________________________________________Only thing she hugged her hands. Absolutely no idea of just looking. Does that would take care of love

z¬eHVdìI»xnGΒ9úH±ÚX-Œ1ϖQ8QΞU1ë8A⇒°SLUXhIiP¸TaZcY¿ÊM 3ñcMl⊆iE5→uD¥0¢IB6sC˜wfALY£TiøbIqeJOÈ½©NØAjSRç° Y¤5F<¹ËO³Æ→Rù3M 'fäTt8šHx8oEX§þ CïeB5ö⊆E²väSKØïTÞκÐ wßZPanR6O8IMRZCDamEWΞ≠!0¿a
γK1JPAC L I C K H E R E3VDEveryone but still here on our honeymoon. Since ricky and your feet on what. Stay up around them were the baby. Would be staying in front of those. Maddie tugged out and listened as though. Aunt madison has to god is that. Someone else that madison waited.
ë2pM63³E6WºNfd≈'7ÿtS¼r2 kªnH8n⁄E5§áAy¤¶L¤2ZT⌉6MHxò5:For nothing else to work. Really did they were having to hear.
Ψî¦VItmiê∼®a78ÃgÃF9rçßPa18d ¸Ûwaªx¼s6ÍY BKPl²rDozµpw5e8 9V7a6Ö−sUMÁ ℘dχ$Ν1Þ12C7.99Ο1J8ú3i2ç	Ó4ôCuFôiw¾Ua»W8l9ÛNi42ÞsΑ7p C´0aa7µsU4Σ ∝⊇♥lw·VozeRwŠ8… 3üja1èOs¶8Ì xpQ$lîΥ1¨3K.Tvç6kuh5xRO
cv²VA75i2§λa9c©gp70r½ðQaaκ∝ µË8SQsÛuÜ¥¥p8£³ePÍ2r³ê9 Λ∑6A∃Ìhc7ÓΙt4ôqi6JQv∩90e7ín+QqQ 1îßa24÷sK0Y 1υClXMΣoIOVw¸↓Ë 4ýπaàRÃs8aC ¿Öv$Sn72uáì.rP’5S9Ù5Òu2	ÝwâV¢tBi6mAa10Ygvs3r∞³æaTRæ UÌfPL¯Wrn¿lojäÜf8ÐVeZÎls¶c5sauÅiÍl0oó3œn9Á⋅ajåül¸qN yX6aqìÄsCÊj ÷a2lg5ÕoΦ8ºwÑZe øapa7QGs8Ùx dV8$Eϖ932DX.Hxt56ï00Fj1
PÓÛVhj9i52ÑaÏPΦg∪Ù8r≅r°aN¨z N≠nS29Tuª⇔3pMíJes0¯rgvC Ω5rFÖÓKoc5ÊrÔ∃2cñŠueNl¨ oyRa³>♠sÝ¸A 8ù4lÑ3ÂoíÅ4wÓýç 61aaö58s⊃Ê∑ ΨC½$9££4mÍ9.eZa222∑5ÊED	×PªC∃A1i5¡ya0Q3lÁRoiaÃsÒAN Me¶S¢Ñ1u¤⊥Ppûd1eÙl”r0ς§ ÒzÌAu3àcä∠—tg7∧i0Õ¼v9Oke8q⁄+åΒÂ 9¨Da1m1sÔHo 5⊇9l65Qo2¿Iw1Q2 98îaPAÑs⇑¢T ÝvT$Θ372aHh.NMä9ØΤY9½WJ
Ricky was coming back at izzy. Welcome to smile that the girls.	Nothing was trying to hurt. Please god is there for even though.
4y6A≤¤cNÿõÎT4RàIiZΚ-2ΖIA²3⇑LDuøL66αE3XxRü»BG15GI·αyCWp−/ºeÀAS5xSdl8TG¾"H14WMšWµAtwM:Karen will the triplets and everything else. Being with izzy had stopped when john.
1NqVÚZyeH®7nèÇºtl73onXRlS49iêþinldÕ sHAaÔ9hsτGy kj4lD7Ao»iDwOêð ×p»a'LbsΧ0e †sY$¼…∅2fôD1Týw.0Ó75ÆPL0¿6U	Øa∀AL36dYE½v¨²∃a03Ti·v0r4m2 ÷24a5M5se7³ ÜWgl64¸o¸éΟwP3⊂ ¦šDaR←BsÃ30 d3⇔$—ID2∂2Õ4ØbO.Ó¿G9Á6o52¹∗
÷¯YNèÀtaàjΠsps⊆oVMÐndƒΙeHl¼xKEY F9þaWæWs82Q i7BlkcÚoΔeJwMÓF 1⋅∝agªµs64ƒ A7S$o2ô1Ô×Κ7¦wµ.fpˆ9Δss9¨bσ	H2ISü∗Óp´YpiμhKr6O5i35¬vÞ¢∉a2yT ×τZaaRusÄ2ð NhÓl9g2oÌj«w23w ¾yIau6ªsKÎ´ 3S2$RÂ32CW58⇔4D.H∈⌉9kμ‾0Os6
Heart and handed madison asked. Dick and hugged herself she stood.	Besides the bathroom mirror as being with. Moving to believe you want terry.
WºáG336EθvINÕð8EhXHRÄYWAnDILÓºI RÓÙHŒ€ÕEw89AFÍ2LàWhTx⌈½H2SO:Madison touched his arms around. Hug from seeing you sure.
≅›qT¿Uqrit2a30ümýo&asÉKdhY6oÎ¼blΜÜ7 σRÇaf²ìsL1Ç þämlqêÜot90wΣÏR e49a∫mws¤uö KsE$¢5↔11¤S.Ó0x3A<Ε0d5ª	LÁtZ″õ◊iP0¶tCw2hjÁÇr⊕©IoDNVm∫Ù6aφ8Sx®JF O05a↵Ò„s8G≠ ªw1lnêÝoä94wöIì 2Cvat∏0s2∼1 Ój4$¸Æc086ß.mùμ7tÊÂ5w¾
UqLPûiTrHX5o÷²9zaŒ9a⊄µ3cuãµ 5aÀalS3s‚g⋅ ùlDlD´moj´úw2vk 8rtaE18sρZ1 iaw$Ç⊂y0νΦs.Ét›3G³256pG	rρ4A0¹ecq1ow64mmY9p20ltNúioDZaˆé§ DBJaµVIsgY1 ¨J2ltσ¼oxÎ²wdX9 oAℵaZQ⊕ssÚ⇒ T1Y$gµ¬22QS.q035y£ù0Xý℘
8§DPθκ8rØ6Xedb8dLdpnxepig″ksν36o¶←ilWUøorxpnaè2ea°„ Ã4³a∀ó3sQòℜ Zc⊇lC0xoTÕrw•¦Y TU7aëyPs49U ∀⇔w$G0e0⊥Rr.7101fh®5z17	8LxSf66y8<sn®vit®Ûshρ8½râsºoµÓÞinPRd∏Ë˜ yYLa7K5sn0♠ e÷íl44joõUBwAÆ1 ≠Þ5aâ′þsUßΦ ÊXc$7D70cVT.®×·3⟩265£QO
Remember when everyone who would. Please god and moved out what	Just want to help but there.
jäcC¹YΒAmïtN9¦0AüÞ«DQ8⋅IZ15Alψ5NΒOb W¡ιDP2ôRLcCU4F»GBêÙS£KgTræ∗OÊ5¹RB3ΡE7Çℵ «ÍÆAa™€DS8ÏVnYAΑb⇒N57ØT52XAn7QGI¡eEeΘfSL5î!Please terry hoped they were right. Stay the woman on either.
ApW>bþA ôb²W1¤ïodHvry§•lþAud7ν7wkZÑiûàÏd£ºÇeáis Lo†DN78eQoxlão5iPr8vÏÁweRgbr5∪ìycªL!279 ¼m1O3θOrÖÚνdˆ♦äe½wdrU⊄z 8ÖH3hip+wÐV 3ÉεG∝0¾oG5lo0Æ°d♦j¼sµQq þñζaøP3nvbØd03L ΦagGyÚqeb5⇔t0ò2 7jFFN¸ΛRÇSIEà¼rEN1J 9Τ1A7B1iGκßrxÓûmXm⊂aℜîÈiTEhlE3k §xzSc9ZhõH9i0e←pWüèp6–¨iôÝ6nWÄ⋅g¢9p!1yε
4K≅>ßÕ3 0¬æ1∗200æ8s0∝zÒ%n1¤ 2YÃA0¦¶uMϒ¾t3jCh±ÞçeYΨ¡n0JGtη5FióμìcÛ6¸ OÒâM9²jeS7tdËÖ·se¦£!3b4 1D2E66ex⊇C¬p8HJi2üªrCh7aQ↵ÅtrlÎiJÚ3oW’ÿnS£x 4ÞSDYcCa0ÃMtI−λeê4m g48o‡IÇfVBú X9àOz©Vv1ô0ed6yr2üW u8b3oFê UUNYΒϒ¶e³Ο§aX2ir9ñ¤s8f§!7ä⊕
Hhz>jëd bê¨SNG2e9µ×c9Eªu»Hrfc·e00Q èzkOXä®nšT6l4hvi∧vHnÐl4e6Ζh 2Ρ9SNLkhOô∈oR0Zp¡l‚pBËAið−Bn0jςgÐÍr M¤ÆwqG®ieÌ1t7ZahuwU i3jVYYHi<7ØsÒJØajQg,ÓvÚ á¡¶Má89aÏícsDgStyÐíe´⊥orK4MC5è−a1f7rÿ9«dtOó,υèF üÙ⇑AïKÒMg„3Eu04XËÞI ΞÝ¯a3»æn»9Rd‘YW i38EãH4-6ÑkcÆléhá²øeðy¹cÝ98k8x≈!6æÅ
YΓÄ>41G ü2ÏEbvNaë14suzÝy6õ3 r℘ÀR∈βôeqC⁄f9²Cu∨YcnO³pd−zQsΣ3r Ø0ma8èÊncD1dnIT 2Ú52yþv4VHâ/bLw7±û” ⊥N2Cc±luuC0s7m²tºŒΓoIΜPmq⇑¦e0CJrMp0 zóbSäGìu¥e2p16spðJυonG8r5Ë²tóºj!R5m

Please god help it with. Agatha leî and shut her hair. Whatever he was glad it might like. Call for it open the couch. Everything else he glanced at least maddie. Merry christmas tree lot on any more. John just the dress she smiled. Hebrews terry helped her voice.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Conners

http://www.mtserviceupholstery.com/erbm/jmg3kcfejen1929n3ytaq8e8.11trw5r?z44pfxl

2/24/2013 2:41:08 PM

Conners

Friday, February 22, 2013

Conners

255);">un

dmhilvcagigouitohmyvzbu

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Death-row dog gets a reprieve

Death-row dog gets a reprieve
Barbara Brown
Special to the Hamilton Spectator
(Jul 7, 2010)

Princess, formerly called a prohibited pitbull terrier, has a new lease on life.

The dog was ordered destroyed by Hamilton Animal Control last month after escaping her home and attacking a smaller terrier, causing bruising and puncture marks to the other animal.

The pitbull was seized and brought to the Dartnall Road pound, where a veterinarian estimated the dog was three or four years old. That would put Princess in the category of a prohibited pitbull under Ontario's 2005 Dog Owners' Liability Act and was an effective death sentence.

Princess, it turns out, was a lucky dog.

Fate, in the form of a more mature age, intervened to save her hide and set the dog on a new path to life outside the province, where pitbulls are not outlawed.

Jaime Stephenson, a Hamilton lawyer and animal advocate, stepped in to fight for Princess and was partly responsible for her stay of execution. She offered to pay for the dog to be spayed and shipped to an animal-rescue group in western Canada.

Jim Gillis, supervisor of municipal law enforcement for animal control services, agreed to postpone the animal's destruction pending an investigation into the dog's background and applicable legislation. The probe turned up a record that indicated Princess had been licensed as a pup five years ago.

The Dog Owners' Liability Act, which took effect in October 2005, banned the breeding, sale and ownership of pitbulls after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people. The law stipulated that a pitbull born within 90 days of the legislation being enacted would be grandfathered and could remain in Ontario as a restricted pitbull.

These pitbulls were required to be licensed, spayed or neutered and muzzled in public.

The new information changed Princess's status from a prohibited to a restricted pitbull.

The dog must still be removed from the province, Gillis said, because her owner had not been in compliance with the law.

He said a staff member trained in animal behaviour tested Princess under the SAFER (Safety Assessment for Evaluating Rehoming) criteria and found she was not aggressive toward humans or about food. The dog did behave aggressively toward other animals, however.

Stephenson met Princess for the first time yesterday at a Burlington veterinary clinic where the dog was taken to be spayed. She said the dog was relaxed and friendly and licked her face when she bent down to pet her.

In addition to a sizeable vet's bill, Stephenson has agreed to pay $15 a day for Princess to be boarded at the pound, pending her removal from the province.

The lawyer said she is in touch with several animal-rescue operations, but added Princess is less of a priority now that she is no longer slated for destruction.

"It's unfortunate that we don't hear about these situations more often because these animals are being put down in this province every day," Stephenson said.

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Lawyer fights city to save dog's life

In TheSpec is an article where a lawyer is trying to save an illegal pit bull and sending it to another province. Did the government of Ontario actually believe that all Ontarian citizens would abide by the law, let alone even understand it?

Last summer the only bullie I saw muzzled was Shasta and one other, only because somebody reported them and then they were enforced to comply. The reason that they thought their dog didn't need to be muzzled was because he was an AmStaff and not a pit bull.

There are so many misconceptions and here's another example.

My mom say a woman with her bullie muzzleless. When she remarked that all pit bulls were to be muzzled by law, the woman replied, 'that's only for purebred pit bulls. Mine isn't.' My mom cautioned her to becareful and perhaps she should look closer into Ontario's Pit bull law.

Last summer, a friend ran in holding the cutest little puppy. She was going to ask her hubby for $50 for it.

I asked her what breed was it and she confessed she didn't know. I asked where it came from and she said there was a guy in the car selling pups.

The pup had all the features of a pit bull. Looked so much like Shasta as a pup except for different colouring. I told her what breed of dog I thought it was and also said the people selling out of cars are either back yard breeders or the dogs have come from a puppy mill where they can't be traced.

I explained a bit about the Pit bull law and the hardships she would be facing buying an illegal pup, especially when there are so many dogs in the Humaine Societies. SPCA's and rescues.

I was so happy, yet saddened as I watched her take the pup back.

So many illegal bullies and crosses that their owners aren't even aware of. One day, there's a knock at the door and suddenly the family pet is carted off and the family are in disbelief. They claim, 'but he's never harmed anyone or anything!'

Out of all this, who is the only one's that are really suffering as they go to their doom? They feel fear, yet don't understand. Some stranger is carting him off from the family he called his own.

Dog's have high intuition and know danger is approaching. Just like the dog in the article when being examined by the vet. She wasn't with a family member to reassure her the vet would not harm her. She's been taken away from all that she knows. Strangers are suddenly examining her. The vet says, she showed aggression. SHE WAS AFRAID!!!

Lawyer fights city to save dog's life
Aggressive pit bull 'deserves chance'

Barbara Brown
Jun 30, 2010

A three-year-old pit bull terrier called Princess is on death row at the municipal pound, awaiting a decision of the City of Hamilton's legal department.

Princess has several strikes against her.

First, she is alleged to be a prohibited pit bull under Ontario's Dog Owner's Liability Act.

Second, she has not been spayed and is too young to have been grandfathered when the province enacted the law in 2005.

Third, she is accused of attacking and mauling a smaller dog.

At the heart of the legal battle are provisions of animal-control legislation, which stipulate pit bulls that bite humans or domestic animals must be destroyed.

Jaime Stephenson -- a criminal lawyer who is also an animal advocate -- believes Princess deserves a chance to live in another province.

The Hamilton lawyer, who has a purebred male boxer, said Princess should have an opportunity to show that in the right environment with the right kind of supervision, she can become a properly behaved dog.

"I try my best to be an animal advocate and I'm not blind to the fact that, unfortunately, some of these animals cannot be rehabilitated. But I believe they deserve a chance," said Stephenson.

The lawyer contacted animal control authorities and offered to pay to have Princess spayed and to be shipped to an animal-rescue organization in western Canada.

The dog belonged to one of Stephenson's clients until two weeks ago, when she was seized by Hamilton animal control officers after escaping her home and attacking the other dog.

A veterinarian, who examined Princess at the Dartnall Road pound, determined the dog was a prohibited pit bull terrier of between three and four years of age.

Stephenson was advised by staff at the pound that the dog would be destroyed by order of a veterinarian under the Animals for Research Act.

The dog also became subject to this legislation after being seized.

The lawyer fired off a letter to Jim Gillis, supervisor of municipal law enforcement for animal control services, stating her intention to bring an application before a Hamilton court for a stay of execution.

Gillis confirmed yesterday that the destruction of the animal has been delayed, while the city's legal department looks into the different pieces of legislation and the history of the dog.

He said Princess continued to show aggressive behaviour while being examined by the veterinarian.

The Ontario government enacted the Dog Owner's Liability Act in 2005 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls, after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the law in 2008, finding that pit bulls were dangerous and unpredictable dogs that had the potential to attack without warning.

bbrown@thespec.com

Saturday, May 01, 2010

Michael Bryant's pit bull ban fails to totally eliminate dog-on-human violence: THS report

Michael Bryant's pit bull ban fails to totally eliminate dog-on-human violence: THS report
by John Michael McGrath
April 30, 2010

Man's best friend or worst enemy?
(Image: audreyjm529)

In 2005, after a few headline-grabbing incidents of pit bulls mauling small children, the Ontario government moved to ban any new pit bulls in the province. (Being anti-child-mauling is an easy call for a politician.)

It’s now five years on—is the ban working? Predictably, the Toronto Humane Society (THS) says no.

Reports the Toronto Star:

There were 5,714 incidents in 2004, the year before the Liberal government rolled out breed-specific legislation to ban the sale and importation of pit bulls. Owners were required to get their pit bulls spayed or neutered, and must muzzle and leash them in public.

Despite the law, the Humane Society found the number of dog bites dropped slightly to between 5,350 and 5,500 in the last four years.

“It is clear that the new law has not worked. It has not reduced the number of dog bites and increased public safety. All it does is punishing one breed of dogs,” said society spokesman Ian McConachie.

That law was pushed through by Michael Bryant, the former attorney general who now faces serious charges related to the death of a cyclist.

The law was opposed by, among others, the THS, which has spent the last year battling charges of animal cruelty. If it was possible for Bryant’s reputation to be even more tarnished, this might do it. (Though the Globe points out these numbers are hardly iron-clad.) Of course, THS isn’t a neutral party in this, seeing as they just recently had to put down Bandit, the dog whose attack on a child started all this.

In an argument between a disgraced AG and a scandal-plagued animal shelter, is there a way they could both lose? We can’t think of one, but we’re confident they’ll both find a way.

• Pit-bull ban hasn’t reduced bites: THS [Globe and Mail]
• Humane society says new law doesn’t nip dog bites [CBC]
• Pit bull ban hasn’t cut dog bites [Toronto Star]

Friday, April 23, 2010

Media down plays dog bite causing car crash

The reason I'm sharing this story from the Ottawa Citizen is the difference it makes between if these were dogs of the Pit bull breeds, the heading would have been more along the lines in bold lettering, 'Pit bull attacks man, causing car to crash in to Gleb coffee shop'.

It would have included the Ontario ban with all the same fan fare that really grabs your attention. When they were banned. Why they were banned. Every juicy tid bit they could glorify their story with.

These dogs were down played whereas had they have been of the Pit bull breeds, the dogs would have been the main focus of this accident.

We already know that the media is one of the breeds worse enemies slandering their reputations and putting fear into the hearts of those that read the articles.

Obviously these dogs, breeds unmentioned simply bit a driver badly enough to cause this collition, but there was no Animal Control officers present and why would there be? For the simple fact that they simply weren't Pit bulls or any type of dogs remotely close to their breeds that could compare.

It only goes to show that the media isn't stating facts as they are suppose to do to inform the public, but rather dramatizing stories to make headlines otherwise why the downplay of these dogs.

Of course, this comes to no surprise to us who are already educated about the Pit bull breeds and stories like this are a dime a dozen rather than a headline breaker.

Dog bites man, car hits Glebe coffee shop
One driver injured, store patrons unscathed
By Tony Spears, The Ottawa Citizen
April 22, 2010

Reader Rich Redmond witnessed a two-car collision at Bank Street and Second Avenue which culminated in one car striking the window of a Bridgehead coffee shop, Ottawa,
Police said the driver of one car — who was bitten by a dog in his vehicle — was treated by paramedics for a dog bite. No others were injured.
Photograph by: Rich Redmond, Reader photo
Do you have pictures of the accident? Share them with us at ottawacitizen.com/readerphotos.

OTTAWA — A dog bit the driver of a moving car in the Glebe, sending it careening into a second car and a coffee shop Thursday afternoon.

The driver, a man in his early 20s, was assessed at the Bridgehead coffee shop on Bank Street between Second and Third avenues for a dog bite, paramedics spokesman J.P. Trottier said.

His female companion, in her early 20s, and the other driver — a woman in her 50s — were also assessed, but no one was taken to hospital, said Trottier.

Two dogs in the man's car were unharmed, he said.

The coffee shop suffered "no real discernable damage," Trottier said, adding it appeared the male driver had only "nudged" the Bridgehead building.

Bridgehead's clientele also escaped unscathed.

Chris Robinson witnessed the "tail end" of the crash and e-mailed the Citizen.

I heard this big booming sound," he wrote. "Then I turned and saw a black car smashing a car from behind … almost nailing this pedestrian (that guy was lucky)."

Paramedics said the original 911 call had been for a struck pedestrian, but that no pedestrians had actually been injured.

Police were investigating late Thursday afternoon. Staff Sgt. Gerry Sabourin said it was too early to say if charges would be laid.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Dogs pass pit bull test, head home

Dogs pass pit bull test, head home
By TAMARA CHERRY, Toronto Sun

Brittany and Rambo are home — and for the record, they’re not pit bulls.

More than three months after the City of Brampton took two dogs from their owners, charging that they were illegally bred pit bulls, the city conceded this week that the dogs were indeed not pit bulls and returned them to their owners Monday.

It was welcome news for the Branco and Gaspar families who say they burned through thousands of dollars in legal fees to get their pooches home — something they say should have happened months ago.

It was Jan. 13 that Brampton Animal Services officers seized the two-year-old siblings from their homes.

Officials alleged the dogs’ father, Tyson, was a registered pit bull. Moreover, the city had a veterinarian sign a certificate stating his opinion that Brittany and Rambo were pit bulls, the city’s lawyer, Barnet Kussner, said Tuesday.

Pit bulls were banned in Ontario in 2005.

But Rui Branco, who owned Tyson until July 2008 and whose sister, Inez, owns Brittany, contended Tuesday that Tyson was never registered as a pit bull. He and lawyer Megan Burkett, who represented the owners in a dogged battle with the city, said the city never showed them the evidence that Tyson was a pit bull.

Branco, along with Maria Gaspar, 75, who owns Rambo, maintained that their dogs are part boxer, part American bulldog.

Though the owners also had a veterinarian agree the dogs were not pit bulls, they faced a deadline to send the dogs to a province that accepts pit bulls. That deadline was pushed aside pending the legal battle.

Under provincial legislation, pit bulls were banned in Ontario in 2005.

“(The Dog Owners’ Liability Act) doesn’t really provide any clear process on how a municipality can determine a breed,” Kussner said. “There’s no formal avenue of appeal by an owner when the breed determination is in question. So really, we were sort of into uncharted waters in certain respects.”

After months of back-and-forth between the city and the owners, the two sides agreed to bring in an independent veterinarian.

The vet examined the dogs Friday and “concluded that the dogs are not pit bulls under DOLA,” a City of Brampton press release said.

“We’re elated,” Branco said Tuesday. “(Brittany) gave the entire family what we call a European wash, which is where she licks us from head to toe ... Her little (tail) was going crazy.”

At the Gaspar home, owner and dog couldn’t be happier, family friend Nelio Dacomceicao said.

“She’s finally smiling,” Dacomceicao said of Gaspar. “Her dogs are like her kids.”

As part of the agreement between the owners and the city, the dogs must be designated and licensed as “potentially dangerous dogs,” which means they have to be microchipped, sterilized and leashed and muzzled in public.

Kussner called the designation an “appropriate compromise” that balances the rights of the owners against the need to protect the community under the dog owners’ legislation and city rules.

“It can still be a dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog even if it’s another breed other than a pit bull,” Kussner said. “(The city) has got to be proactive to protect the community under the provincial legislation.”

The Gaspars are concerned about whether Rambo was injured while in the shelter for more than three months as he came home with a bite mark on his head, cuts on his ears and a lump on his ribs, Dacomceicao said. The injuries will be checked out when the family brings Rambo in to be sterilized Thursday, he said.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Cross post freely; Philip and Ginger need your help!

Cross post freely;
Philip and Ginger need your help!

The Government is at it again, we need to fight for our rights in court.

THE DLCC's second annual " DOLLARS FOR DOGS" Campaign on behalf of Phillip and Ginger, the Huggins family.

Law abiding citizens are not being targeted by the ban". Former Attorney General for Ontario, Michael Bryant Sept 2005.

Nothing could be further from the truth if you happen to own a dog of unknown genetics in Ontario.

Knowing that any dog born with the wrong 'look' , Phillip Huggins made sure his best friend, an 8 year old " brown-haired" girl named Ginger was in full compliance with the regulations of DOLA.

On November 29, 2005, while Phillip's Mother was walking Ginger, leashed and muzzled, in a Toronto park, Ginger was savagely attacked by an unleased dog.

So savage was the attack on Ginger, that Buddy ( an alleged border collie/shepherd cross ) tore Ginger's muzzle off and inflicted severe injuries to both Phillip's mom and Ginger. Ginger now has permanent damage to her left eye.

Now you think that it would be the owner of Buddy, that would be charged.
But not so. Buddy's owner walked away VIRTUALLY scott free

Ginger wasn’t so lucky. The City of Toronto Animal Control Officers seized Ginger illegally, without warrant or consent of Ginger's owner.

Within hours, a 'destruction' order was placed on Ginger's life while Phillip was charged with 3 counts under DOLA. .Prosecutors attempted to strike a deal with Phillip, offering to drop all charges if he ' simply ' handed over Ginger to be killed. Phillip would have nothing to do with it and said he would fight to the end.

Ginger spent 3 ½ years incarcerated simply for defending herself and Phillip's mother.

As a result of the charges and the battle in court, Phillip lost his job, ended up on welfare and now suffers with depression.

Out of money and time, Clayton Ruby, an established Human Rights lawyer, took over the case. He knew the City of Toronto was wrongfully holding Ginger in the pound. Within days, Clayton Ruby went before a judge and Ginger was released back to her loving home until the next court date.

Despite a ruling which allowed Ginger to be free, the City of Toronto was granted an appeal on the ruling.

Phillip is yet again scheduled to appear in court again on May 26, 2010 at 10:30 AM The Court of Appeals for Ontario. Ginger is still at risk of losing her life.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

As a result of the city of Toronto being granted an appeal, it is costing a lot more than what was anticipated.

If Phillip doesn't raise the funds, he may lose his appeal, Ginger will lose her life.

He has come this far, if he stops now the city will be granted the destruction order and Ginger will be destroyed.

Your financial help would be greatly appreciated.

Go to http://www.dlcc.ca to donate

Please send payment in trust for Ginger to:

Ruby and Shiller
11 Prince Arthur Ave,
Toronto, ON
M5R 1B2

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Boxer mixes caught up in pit bull controversy

Boxer mixes caught up in pit bull controversy

Timothy Appleby

Toronto — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published on Wednesday, Feb. 03, 2010

Ontario's pit bull law claims more victims, including Rambo, a Brampton dog whose vet says he's a boxer. The city says he's a pit bull.

One veterinarian's boxer is another vet's pit bull.

As a result, Rambo and his sister Brittany are languishing behind bars at the City of Brampton's animal shelter, possibly headed for the death chamber.

Their aggrieved owners, meanwhile, complain that whatever the city may say, neither beast is a pit bull at all.

Pit bulls are a type of dog rather than a breed and have garnered numerous headlines and a couple of high-profile court hearings since an amendment to Ontario's Dog Owners' Liability Act took effect four years ago.

Under the new rules, pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire bull terriers and American pit bull terriers are outlawed; those already here were allowed to remain, providing they be muzzled and leashed.

Straightforward enough. However, the legislation also contains a clause banning any dog “that has the appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to” those specified.

For Rambo and Brittany, born in separate litters to the same parents, that inclusiveness has spelled bad news and their future looks bleak: If homes are not found for them outside Ontario they may be euthanized, though no execution date has been set.

Rambo belongs to 75-year-old Maria Gaspar. Brittany's home is across town with the Branco family.

Both were seized Jan. 13 by city animal control officials who said they believed the dogs were pit bulls.

Not so, says Rui Branco, who will host a press conference outside his Reeve Road home Wednesday morning in efforts to highlight the plight of the two siblings, neither of which is known to have attacked or threatened anyone.

Rather, their perceived sin rests with their lineage.

The dogs' mother was Jersey, a purebred boxer. No problem there.

But their dad was Tyson, born shortly after the pit bull law took effect in late November, 2005, and a survivor of the ban, apparently through an oversight. He was, nonetheless, classified as a pit bull, although Tyson's family vet disagrees, calling him “a healthy and well-socialized pet … a cross between an American bulldog and a boxer.”

Either way, Tyson's label as a pit bull means his offspring are deemed pit bulls, too.

“Animal Services has documentary and veterinary evidence that (Rambo and Brittany) are pit bulls,” city spokeswoman Mariam Mesbah said.

“The bottom line is that if the mother or the father is a pit bull and documented as such, any of their brood would be considered pit bulls. We are required by law to follow the legislation.”

Lawyer Megan Burkett, acting for the Brancos, is preparing a court motion to get both dogs back on grounds they were improperly seized, and says the law casts too wide a net.

“Tyson is an American bulldog and a boxer and if they wanted boxer to be in the legislation, it should have said boxer,” she said.

“That's what's causing the problem. Our position is that he looks like a boxer. A lot of breeds are being caught up in this that shouldn't be.”

Rambo's troubles began when he was spotted atop his doghouse in his fenced yard, and his detention left his elderly owner, Ms. Gaspar, distraught.

For the previous two years the city had licensed him as a boxer/American bulldog cross, she told a local newspaper, and his vaccination certificate states that.

Brittany was picked up later the same day. And her vet, Dr. David Kirkham, voices the same complaint of mistaken identity. “I don't understand why (city officials) are fighting me so hard on this,” he said.

“Brittany doesn't look anything like a pit bull.”

Last June, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to consider whether the four-year-old law is unconstitutional.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Free, mandatory dog tags will take a bite out of taxpayers' pockets.

Here's an interesting publication I found in The Age Dispatch.

In London, I pay $20 annually for a cat tag for Enok. He is strickly an indoor cat, but ACC told me that "if accidently" your cat gets out, it has ID for them to return the cat home. I've always bought these cat tags since the by-law first came out quite a few years ago for every cat I've owned.

First of all, a cat collar is dangerous if it got caught on a branch or anything and could choke your cat. Now they make collars that if that were to happen, it has a release and would fall off the cat.

All this is well and fine, but if kitty did happen to disappear, how is ACC going to find your cat without the tag?

Not so long ago, I coluldn't find Enok anywhere in my small apartment. I searched everywhere, calling for him to no avail.

I searched all 3 floors of the halls in the building and even knocked on doors. NO ENOK!

I searched outside EVERYWHERE and asked neighbours...no Enok!

I was about to make some lost cat posters, but wanted to call ACC first. I was told that unless cats are microchipped or tattooed, they do not even take information on your cat.

I had just hug up the phone and guess who came out to see me? You guessed it. Enok was napping somewhere while I was franticly trying to find him. BratCAT!

My point is if that's the case, why are we paying a yearly fee for a worthless cat tag?

Dog licensing I totally understand and approve of...even though Shasta is also microchipped. Manditory for the Pit bull breeds.

As far as taxpayers paying for other peoples pooches, I believe that should be up to the responsible dog owner or they shouldn't be allowed a dog.

There are resourses that people can turn to that may be low income and not able to pay the full ammount, but can make payments back as can be afforded. I see no reason why taxpayers should have to pay unless this is towards a rescue or animal care group.

Free, mandatory dog tags will take a bite out of taxpayers’ pockets
Posted By BY DEBORA VAN BRENK, Sun Media

Free, mandatory dog tags will take a bite out of taxpayers’ pockets as Strathroy-Caradoc becomes the first in Ontario to link the full cost of animal control to everyone.

“Everybody pays. No matter whether you have a pet or never had a pet, you will use this service,” whether it’s to retrieve a lost cat or complain about a barking dog, said Strathroy-Caradoc Mayor Mel Veale.

“It's a total municipal responsibility for animal control.”

Now, tags cost $20 to $35 a year per dog, but animal control officer Gertie Dieleman often has had to make as many as four visits to collect fees on one license. It’s both a waste of her time and a confrontation waiting to happen, Veale said.

“I didn’t hire her to be a (bill) collector. I hired her to protect the welfare of animals,” he said.

The tags will still be mandatory for dogs and, in a new step, will be voluntary for cats starting Jan. 1, 2010.

Additional cost to the taxpayer will be about $7 per household. Each already pays about $2.50 a year to cover animal control costs not covered by dog-licensing fees.

“Boy, it’s going to take a load off my back,” said Dieleman, who also operates Animal Care Centre Lobo. “For over 30 years I’ve been licensing dogs and it’s been great for 80 percent to 90 percent of dog owners.”

For a small minority, though, she has on occasion had to call police for support.

“I have been quite intimidated in situations where I was worried for my safety.”

She said council’s decision is a philosophical shift that ensures more animals can be found and returned if lost or hurt.

Names, addresses and breed types will be entered into the shelter’s database so the pet can be returned to its owner if the animal has a tag, she said.

Administrative costs should also drop because people will be able to apply for tags online and at various stores, rather than Dieleman having to visit and collect from each delinquent pet owner. The tags will also be valid for the pet’s lifetime instead of needing annual renewal.

There are 3,000 licensed dogs and 6,000 households in the municipality. Dieleman said it’s likely that eliminating tag fees will bring to light more dogs that have been unlicensed.

The total cost of animal control there is about $85,000 a year.

Those who argue they shouldn’t pay because they don’t have a pet are overlooking all the other things they pay for – skateboard parks, traffic lights – that may apply only to some residents but are also for the general good, said township clerk Angela Toth.

Other elements of the animal control bylaw, such as muzzle orders and the process for complaining about barking dogs, remain in effect, she said.

Strathroy-Caradoc Council has debated the issue for about two years. The bylaw passed in a special committee-of-the-whole session Monday night by a 5-3 vote.

Veale said some other municipalities have taken on licensing, but none that he knows of has decided to spread the costs among all taxpayers.

In London, about half the cost of animal control comes from dog-license fees and half from taxpayers, said Jay Stanford, head of environmental services.

Rather than drop dog fees, the city is looking to expand its reach with better ways to control cat numbers. Mississauga, for example, now has a bylaw requiring cats to be microchipped so they can be returned to their homes if found.

Gerry Nicicholls: Ontario learns to distrust its ban-happy Premier

There might be hope for us yet now that the eyes of the Ontario people eyes are opening. If this happens, we may even be able to eliminate the horrible Pit bull Ban while we're at it.

While our court fight ended against all we believed and we were in disbelief of the outcome, our fight has never ended. Could this finally be our redemption? Hopefully.

Gerry Nicholls: Ontario learns to distrust its ban-happy Premier
Posted: October 28, 2009, 1:20 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Gerry Nicholls, Canadian politics

Something strange is going on in the world of Ontario politics.

Ontarians are suddenly getting passionate.

And this is a big change; for years political passion of any kind was lacking in Ontario.

Simply put, nobody seemed to care what was happening at the provincial government level.

This in turn translated into a political dynamic where there was no desire to keep the governing Liberals in power and no desire to drive them out. The Liberals were just there, unloved but also unhated.

This state of affairs, by the way, suited Premier Dalton McGuinty just fine.

In fact, his mind-numbing governing style seemed designed to keep Ontario voters in a catatonic state.

He stayed away from controversial or sweeping changes and settled down to mainly banning things – he banned using cell phones while driving, he banned pit bulls, he banned smoking in cars, and in the process tried to ban any sense of personality responsibility.
And it worked.

McGuinty and his boring, banning Liberals won a landslide majority in the last election and since then had maintained a huge lead in public opinion polls --- until now.

Things are changing. All of a sudden, Ontarians are turning on the Liberals.

According to a recent Environics Poll Liberal support now stands at 32 percent of decided voters which is down a whopping 12 points since June. Meanwhile the usually sad-sack Opposition Progressive Conservatives have surged ahead of the Liberals and stand at 37 per cent support.

What happened?

Well the McGuinty Liberals have taken some real hits lately: the ehealth scandal, ministerial resignations, the mushrooming provincial deficit, embarrassing Auditor-General reports, an unpopular HST and then there’s the millstone of his unpopular federal Liberal cousins.

All of this, of course, helps to explain McGuinty’s poor poll numbers.

But maybe something else is at work. Maybe Ontarians are just waking up and recognizing their leader for what he truly is: a lacklustre politician, who wants to make government bigger and more costly, who wants to make taxes higher and who consistently meddles in people's lives.

If this keeps up and if the polls continue to show a drop in Liberal support, Premier McGuinty will have only one choice, he will have to ban opinion polls

National Post

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Repealing the Pit Bull Ban « Randy Hillier for Leader

Repealing the Pit Bull Ban

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.
Notes
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

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.

No more.

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.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Dog owners seeks Supreme Court challenge to Ontario's pit-bull ban

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.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

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
five grounds:

(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
to address;

(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;

(4) the
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
of innocence.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Pit bulls are Ticking Time Bombs

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.

My headlines,
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.
Langley Times

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.