Midland Ontario continuing its legacy of illogical canine bylaws

The town of Midland recently amended their dog bylaw. They actually didn't change much other than increasing fines; however they were already on the "no fly" list for dog owners. Looks as though they are choosing to remain on the illogical list and maintain their status in the **ban plus club.

** the ban plus club is a name I have chosen for municipalities that choose to up the price of poker and add other breeds or non-breeds (mutts) to their list of "get out of our town cause we don't want you or your stinkin' dog here!"

Towns and cities actually have the power to choose NOT to enforce the law. They can choose to apply dog bylaws to ALL dog owners regardless of breed (which some Ontario towns have chosen to do). Some cities and towns choose not to enforce this barbaric, hysterical, illogical law. One such city is Ottawa (to learn more click here).
So basically here is a run down of the sections of the Midland dog bylaw that are pertinent to this topic.

TOWN OF MIDLAND

BY-LAW NO. 98-41

A By-law for the Licensing and Requiring the Registration of Dogs and for the Control of Dogs within the boundaries of the Town of Midland

18.0 MUZZLING OF DOGS

18.1 The owner of a breed of dog described in Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law, shall ensure that when the dog is on any municipal property, the snout of the dog is secured at all times by the use of a muzzle so as to prevent it from biting a person or animal and that the dog be secured to the owner by a leash.

SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO AMENDING BY-LAW 99-64

Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or any dog of mixed breeding which includes any of the aforementioned breeds.

Rottweiler or any dog of mixed breeding which includes the aforementioned breed.

Any member of the Mastiff dog family or any dog of mixed breeding which includes the aforementioned breed. (Amending By-law 2001-22)

So to break it down, the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier are legitimate breeds and are banned under the amendment to DOLA by the Fiberals in 2005. There are so few of any of the three breeds in Ontario, I highly doubt there are any in existence in Midland. There are less than 1500 purebred dogs total (all three breeds combined) in Ontario.

I've been through Midland many times. My mom lives in the next town and I don't stop for anything in Midland since I don't spend money in towns that are anti dog!

The Pit Bull Terrier and Pit Bull do not exist. They are slang terms for a shape or type of dog but can be any short haired cross bred dog of any combination possible commonly known as a "mutt". Labs being one of the most common breeds in Canada are likely a common portion of the composition of these short haired mutts.

The "or any dog of mixed breeding which includes any of the aforementioned breeds", cannot be proven since there is no way to determine (scientifically or otherwise) the exact composition of breeds for any mutt.  However the gotcha is Bryant added reverse onus in DOLA so it is up to the owner of a mutt to prove their dog isn't a "pitbull" if it is identified as such. You cannot prove a negative therefore you cannot prove your dog is not a "pitbull".

Also banned in Midland is the Rottweiler or any dog of mixed breeding which includes the aforementioned breed. (Therefore Rottweiler's and any other black and tan dog with eyebrows).


And last but not least; Any member of the Mastiff dog family or any dog of mixed breeding which includes the aforementioned breed.

Mastiff breeds include:
Old English Mastiff
Neapolitan Mastiff
Cane Corso
Great Dane
Tibetan Mastiff
Bull Mastiff
Dogo Argentino
Dogue de Bordeaux
Tosa Inu
Fila Brasileiro
South African Boerboel
Presa Canario

So what is left? Hairy and small. But then again, I have witnessed some breed identifications that would make your hair curl.
In my estimation, I am better off safe than sorry. I actually know for sure my dog is banned in Midland so I will continue to NOT visit or spend any money there. I will save my money for Elmvale or Penetanguishene. (Ontario local humor check the map).
Take a long hard look at your dog before entering the town limits of Midland Ontario. If you are sitting in denial or think your dog's life is safe in this anti dog town, think again.

Court rules Miami-Dade County ban unenforcable

Yip, yip, yipee!


I'm having a difficult time containing my excitement. More and more jurisdictions are coming to their senses, albeit court ruling in some instances.


Italy came to their senses. KC Dogblog has a good post about that here.


The Netherlands tossed, UK is on the verge... many towns, cities and counties have already tossed the redneck legislation (stolen reference from caveat) into the trash and many others are on their way.


Miami-Dade is the latest jurisdiction to break out the burning barrel.


Mar 19, 2009 – Miami-Dade County, Florida - Miami Coalition Against Breed Specific Legislation (MCABSL) and Animal Law Coalition applaud a court ruling that the Miami Dade County Pit Bull ban is too vague, and the county cannot enforce the finding by animal control that a dog is a pit bull that must be euthanized or removed from the county.


The ruling came in a case challenging the finding by Miami Dade County Animal Control that a family pet named Apollo was a “pit bull” that must be removed from the county or euthanized.


**The word euthanized should not be used as a substitution for killing or slaughter. Euthanize is a word used to describe the humane destruction of an animal in pain or suffering. To put out of misery, if you will. Not a word used to describe the senseless slaughter of innocent animals based on the shape or type they are or are similar to.


A court ruled Miami-Dade's 20 year ban on pit bulls was too vague in defining "pit bull" and unfairly let animal control officers basically guess whether a dog is a pit bull.


Could it be that the world is coming to its senses? Could it be that the redneck knuckle draggers are being squashed? By the way, here are couple examples of redneck knuckle draggers:

The tide is turning. People have begun to see the grandstanding for what it is. Lies, pure lies. The strong majority of people have cut through the bullsh*t.

The days of witch hunting short haired, muscular looking dogs is coming to an end. Time to retire the pitchforks and torches. Raise a glass to the restoration of common sense and the slap down to all the hysterical hatred. Let dogs be dogs and understand that dogs were never a problem in the first place. There are positive alternatives that are proven winners aka Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership law.


The days of this will soon be over!

Is HSUS fabricating stories to further their agenda?

I came across an interesting article written by a physician named Joe Abraham from Louisianna.

Dr. Abraham points out that something smells fishy in the HSUS camp (my words no offense to fish). I have been wondering that very thought for quite some time now. I have jokingly asked whether the animal liberationist "hidden videos" of many sectors such as research labs, slaughter houses and puppy mills, are shot in some movie set in Hollywood? I don't doubt that substandard conditions are alive and well in any given sector however I do question the hysteria and common occurrence we are being led to believe. I do not believe there is just cause to threaten an entire industry such as farming or dog breeding. It is a knee jerk reaction to legislate sweeping laws based on the word of an animal liberationist group known for "dramatic effect" shall we say. Much research and input must be deliberated when entire industries are threatened. Emotion must not be the driver but rather common sense.

Wednesday night, Nightline airs a story of a Humane Society undercover videographer, showing "horrific" video of primates at the UL New Iberia Research Center. The very next morning, the Humane Society announces that three Congressman are re-introducing a bill to abolish critical medical research. Is the Humane Society fabricating a story to further its political agenda?

Read Dr. Abraham's article here.

It is worth a read.

---

Another great article I stumbled across on a website called Animal Rights or Human Responsibility.

The article "The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Animal Rights Activism within the HSUS Cloak of Animal Welfare", discusses the beginnings of HSUS were animal welfare based but have morphed into a consistent animal rights agenda.

The other article that caught my eye was "Held to a Higher Standard than Human?" 

Picture it … there’s a knock on your door.  When you answer, you are met by a child protective services official announcing they are here to inspect your home.  You ask why, they won’t tell you.  When asked for a warrant, you are told they don’t need one since you have 3 children. They stroll through your house, tsking over the dishes in the sink  to examine your child’s hands and ears.  With a declaration of  “Just what we thought” all your children are gathered up and seized.  Why? “Neglect, nails are too long and uncleaned ears”

It sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?  Yet pet owners breeders are being subjected to this treatment in increasing numbers as a direct consequence of two factors: ambiguous legislation, often touted as “Puppy Mill legislation”  and the purposeful mis-use of powerful words such as ‘abuse’ & ’neglect’.  The combination of these factors can be devastating.

All of the above are great articles. Food for thought...

Military are thanked for risking their lives by banning their dogs

We have had many emails from panic stricken dog owners who are in the Canadian military asking why they cannot get back into Ontariostan with their dog. Well the answer is that if they are posted out of Ontario for longer than 3 months and take their dog with them, they are S-O-L on bringing thier dog back into the province.

The dog must have been licensed in Ontario on or before August 2005. This applies to all registered American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and "pitbulls" which applies to any dog identified as such by animal control or any other peace officer. I showed a sampling of some of the dogs deemed as banned here in Ontario in another post.

Below are a couple other examples of dogs deemed a "pitbull" since I posted in February. I merely want to give you a true picture of what a "pitbull" looks like in the eyes of many Ontario animal control officers, peace officers and some veterinarians. I actually do not blame those who have been given the ugly job of identifying a cross bred dog (which is impossible to do beyond a doubt). When it is a silly game in a shelter (name that breed) or looking at pictures on the web guessing what breed the dog is; all is fun and games. When an animal control officer, peace officer, vet or shelter worker play this game, it is a game of life or death. If the dog is unlucky enough to have someone identify them as a "pitbull", it is a death sentence. Not so damn fun anymore.

The dogs in the pictures above were identified as "pitbulls" in Ontario. They are littermates.


Getting back to where I place blame for this whole ugly mess...

McGuinty and Bryant orchestrated the whole fiasco but I also place blame firmly in the hands of each and every Fiberal MPP who voted in favor of banning dogs in the province of Ontario.

Overwhelming evidence was presented to them at the committee hearings contrary to the off the rails logic they were applying; yet their whipped vote passed into law the killing of innocent dogs and legislating discrimination against dog owners based on the shape of dog they own.

I realize I was off on a bit of a tangent and will explain how this ties in with my title. The great majority of people I meet and speak to have no clue they are potential targets just owning a dog period. Most people have a picture in their mind of what they suppose a "pitbull" may look like. Those that have been deemed "competent" to be the judge and jury appear to have quite a time narrowing down what it is they feel a "pitbull" may look like.

Definition of a witchhunt:

The term "witch-hunt" is often used to refer to similarly panic-induced searches for perceived wrong-doers other than witches.

So basically, the majority of dog owners look at their dog and think "I'm ok since I do not own a 'pitbull'; the law only applies to those who do own one". 

Taking into consideration the reverse onus portion of the law, if your dog is identified as a "pitbull" it is up to you (the owner) to prove it is not. You cannot prove a double negative. Since it is impossible to postively identify the breeds that make up a cross bred dog it is impossible to prove your dog is NOT a "pitbull". That is the Fiberal's game of "GOTCHA".

It is illegal to move out of Ontario ie. military posting, taking your dog out of province for more than 3 months, and then turn around and bring the dog back into Ontario. If you move back within the 3 months you must prove your dog was a resident of Ontario prior to the leaving date.

It is also illegal to travel through or to Ontario as a non resident of the province, with your dog. No holidays or visiting for dog owners in Ontario.

It is illegal to import dogs falling under DOLA into the province. Since the definitions are vague, other than a registered named 3 breeds, any other dog is fair game based on who is id'ing the breed. This rule of thumb applies to any and all situations above.

There was an article in the USA this week stating "Army bars some breeds".

Two months after Fort Hood officials banned pit bulls in on-post housing, the U.S. Army standardized its pet policy, barring pit breeds like American Staffordshire bull terriers and English Staffordshire bull terriers.

The Army-wide ban also included Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, chows, wolf hybrids and any others that display a dominant or aggressive behavior, according to information from Actus Lend Lease, Fort Hood's privatized family housing contractor.

The article goes on to state they will be implementing a "grandfathering" and those owning existing animals must register with the Fort Hood Veterinary Clinic prior to enactment in order to qualify for keeping their dog. (One would assume the "or else" factor would be killing your dog?)

The Herald reported in September that pet owners who registered those breeds with the Fort Hood Veterinary Clinic before July 10, 2008, were allowed to keep their dogs. Newly acquired pit bulls and their crosses are prohibited from staying in on-post housing, according to Fort Hood Regulations 210-48 and 40-5.

"This policy will reduce (the) number of potentially dangerous dogs on post," Chris Zimmer of the post's Department of Emergency Services said in September. "It will create a safer environment in Fort Hood housing areas and will likely reduce (the) number of dog bites on post in the future."

The miserable failing grade in this line of thinking is that the number of "potentially dangerous dogs" will be reduced. There is absolutely NO proof of any such thing. There is also a huge misconception that the environment will be "safer". Says who? All fun and safe until a breed or cross breed not on the "danger" list takes someone's face off. Then what? add another?


This line of thinking is outright profiling of certain perceived wrong-doers (owners of certain named breeds, determined by the torch/pitchfork crowd) within the US Military.  **Refer to definition of witch hunt above**

Some way to thank the men and women of the US Military for risking their lives to save the asses of the torch/pitchfork crowd! I would bet the same crowd are the ones who back the idea there needed to be Military action taken against the "evil doers". It must be a drag to live ones life in such fear...

I live quite close to a military base. There is no evidence that using the same common sense approach of a Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw, just like the one Calgary perfected in the past couple decades, wouldn't work on a military base.

If a dog owner of ANY breed;

trains
contains
socializes

There should be no reason to deal with a dog owner other than to renew tags once a year.

The same scenario is happening in Onscario. Brave men and women who are deployed to Afghanistan or other countries on peace keeping missions, or simply are posted to other provinces are not allowed back into Onscario with their cross bred dog if the post is longer than 3 months or they aquired a dog while living outside Onscario.

It looks as though you are being targeted and punished by the government if you are in the military and own a dog. Civil rights apply whether you live north or south of the Canada/US border. Either way, the government has no right to come into any citizen's home and dictate what shape/type of dog they can/cannot own!