Interesting article in UK K-9 magazine

For those of you who know me, you know I am not into mushy stuff, but when it comes to sarcasm I'm at the front of the line.
This article in the UK K-9 Magazine was posted by a friend of mine and caught my eye.
I think those of us here in Ontariostan and many parts of the US can relate to this..
If you have ever stopped to think about the lunacy of UK dangerous dog laws you aren’t alone.
If we break them down to their simple (and dumbest) form, and apply them to the dog’s perspective, they go something like this:
1) Thou shalt not be a Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro or (God forbid) Dogo Argentino.You may be any number of other breeds who are of equal size, strength or share the same family heritage of these dogs. Just don’t be any of these in particular. Got it?
2) Thou shalt not look like a Pit Bull Terrier, even if your parents are not, in any way Pit Bull Terrier ‘like’ you may not look like one upon punishment of execution. Understand? Do not look Pit Bull like. Ever.
3) If you are going to bite someone, make sure you do it in your own home and not in public. One is an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act, the other is merely a bit of harmless japery.
4) Your owner, who is responsible for your behaviour and, ultimately, your life is 90% certain NOT to know what is contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act. So I guess it’s down to you.
5) If you pull your owner over or if you collide with your owner because you are a big, stupid lump, and your owner needs to get hospital treatment as a result - that will be recorded as a ‘dog attack’ (bad dog you!)
6) If your owner chooses not to socialise you properly or indeed not to do any training with you at all, be aware that you are STILL expected to obey the laws because it is you who will be subject to the death penalty, not them. In other words, make sure you train yourself well.
7) If you are a large black and tan dog who looks a bit like a Rottweiler, be aware you may require your owner to kit you and indeed them out in water proof clothing for you are going to be spat at in public for a little while. You see, you are known as a ‘devil dog’ now. And the tag is correct. The papers say so. You “should be banned” you know?

8 ) If you are a dog not legally deemed to be ‘dangerous’ or banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act, you are, by definition ’safe’. Which means, unfortunately for you, you won’t hold much appeal for thugs and brain donors and so a life of villainy is not available to you. It goes without saying you can’t and won’t EVER bite anyone or seriously injure anyone, you are legally ‘not dangerous’ and therefore incapable of killing anybody or hurting people badly. You are legally a safe dog.
9) If you happen to be a Rottweiler and your owner collapses whilst out walking you, whatever you do, don’t try and help him or her. If you do, you will be shot dead on the spot.
10) Be aware that your owner may have no dog ownership experience and may have literally no idea whatsoever in how to train you, socialise you, feed you or be aware of any of the laws that apply to you. In which case please learn to feed yourself a proper diet, socialise yourself, study the Dangerous Dogs Act and generally ensure you don’t get up to any naughtiness. There’s a good chap.
Hopefully the dogs who are reading this will take heed. After all, what will happen if the UK moves to adopt a new, improved Dangerous Dogs Act and starts handing down criminal records for canine offenders? Seem ludicrous, far fetched and flat out ridiculous?

Bear convicted for theft of honey
The taste of honey was just too tempting for a bear in Macedonia, which repeatedly raided a beekeeper’s hives.
Now it has a criminal record after a court found it guilty of theft and criminal damage.
But there was an empty dock in the court in the city of Bitola and no handcuffed bear, which was convicted in its absence.
The case was brought by the exasperated beekeeper after a year of trying vainly to protect his beehives.
For a while, he kept the animal away by buying a generator, lighting up the area, and playing thumping Serbian turbo-folk music.
But when the generator ran out of power and the music fell silent, the bear was back and the honey was gone once more.
“It attacked the beehives again,” said beekeeper Zoran Kiseloski.
Because the animal had no owner and belonged to a protected species, the court ordered the state to pay for the damage to the hives - around $3,500 (£1,750; 2,238 euros).
The bear, meanwhile, remains at large - somewhere in Macedonia.

Source:
So, look up all you dangerous dogs living in the UK. Criminal convictions could be here to punish you for your bad deeds one day soon. And regardless of how daft and silly that idea sounds, it’s not that far off as daft and silly as the law we have right now. Lord Baker who introduced the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act with support from the Kennel Club, RSPCA and other welfare groups, was not asked to comment on whether he thought giving dogs criminal records was a step in the right direction. At the risk of editorialising, let’s just assume he would.
Author Details
Ryan O'Meara is editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers. He lives in the East Midlands with his own two dogs, Mia and Chloe. - See this author's webpage

Rambo's owner in court again

It looks like Rambo is stuck in jail until at least May according to the Mississauga News.
Gabriela Nowakowska's lawyer, Anik Morrow, has presented an interesting angle on the fight for Rambo's life. Here is an excerpt from the article in the Mississauga News...


"The person charged is Nowakowska, but the item seized is the dog," she said. "We will be asking for a visitation order on the item seized. The item is depreciating and losing its intrinsic value," because the bond between Rambo and its young owner is being disrupted. 


The toll this ordeal must be taking on both Nowakowska and Rambo is heartbreaking to say the least. Being separated from his owner at such a critical time in the young dog's development is crucial, however will it be possible to rehabilitate the dog once he is sprung out of jail?
What lasting effects do you think this may have on the dog?
The angle described above is an interesting one and not an angle that has been discussed in any other cases we have seen. What is your opinion on the Rambo case? 

Calgary has stats posted on thier website

Calgary and comprehensive, effective animal bylaws belong in the same sentence. We have been shouting from the rooftops about the Calgary model for years now. 
The city of Calgary now has statistics posted on their website.  The stats are in graph form and very easy to read.
The proof is in the pudding. For those who can't quite get their head wrapped around the transformation from a bylaw into a practical, common sense plan; anyone can plainly see the results have paid off. Kudos to Calgary for implementing a long term plan and successfully achieving an environment that makes pet owners, non pet owners and pets equally happy!
h/t caveat

PETa kills more animals than Michael Vick

The New York Times interviewed both PETA and Best Friends Animal Society (a sanctuary in Utah which took a number of Michael Vick's dogs).
An excerpt from the article; quotes both sides:
Ingrid Newkirk, the founder and chief executive of PETA, called Best Friends “an expensive Camelot.”
“These are celebrity dogs,” she said this week in a telephone interview. “That isn’t a good use of money, it isn’t the best uses of time. The Vick dogs are the least likely candidates for success. It’s just a much more exciting story that comes with money attached to it.”
The founder of Best Friends, Michael Mountain, said PETA, for all its high-profile advocacy, is boxed in by an outdated philosophy.
“I don’t think PETA’s argument is with us, I think it’s with themselves,” he said from Utah in a telephone interview. “It’s really difficult as an animal-rights, animal-protection, animal-whatever-you-want-to-call-it organization to explain away the fact that pretty much all the animals you rescue, you kill. It doesn’t make logical sense; it doesn’t make emotional sense.”
Since when is PETA worried about expenses? The billions of dollars they take in from the half wits who support their execution of thousands of adoptable pets, is money much better spent on what? The expense agenda from PETA indicates:
-money spent on rehabilitating animals to prepare them for a chance to have a good loving home is pointless because PETA do not believe in finding animals homes. In PETA's philosophy, animals are better off dead, which is exactly the 'gift' they give the animals in their custody.
-money would be much better spent on media campaigns targeting reputable breeders and spewing the rhetoric of mandatory spay/neuter laws, breed specific laws and other self serving issues.
The question was asked; will both sides (animal rights groups and animal welfare groups) ever be able to work together. Well, I am one to never say never, but in this case I will make an exception to my rule.

Remember the famous ticking time bomb line?

The Ottawa Sun had an article title this weekend stating;
Quebec pit bull dumping ground Ontario laws turn la belle province into dog pound of last resort
In an excerpt;
"Ever since the breed-specific legislation came down (in 2005), Quebec right away had this huge influx of pit bulls and pit bull mixes," said Ashley Adam, who is a canine trainer and behaviourist.
This leaves me scratching my head wondering if our former AG was actually trying to cause some serious harm to fellow Canadians? or rather Canadienne's? Now if a shape of dog can be a 'ticking time bomb', attack without provocation or warning, cause more harm than any other dog on earth then why on earth would a responsible government send these Tasmanian devils to other provinces?
What the hell was Bryant thinking?

 

What to do if animal control come knocking

In light of cases in and around this great province of Ontariostan, a friend sent me a link to some advice for dog owners/breeders who may have an animal control officer at their door.
Here is the complete text. The link to the page is above, just click on link. This advice is from the US however it gives dog owners/breeders good advice anywhere and you should always check with a lawyer when in doubt. You can never be too careful when it comes to the lives of your pets.

WHAT TO DO WHEN ANIMAL CONTROL COMES KNOCKING

by George J. Eigenhauser Jr.

(he is an attorney at law licensed in the State of California since 1979 and practices in the areas of civil litigation and estate planning)

ANTI-DOG ENFORCEMENT - What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know

Dog owners and ethical breeders are increasingly being targeted. Disgruntled neighbors may retaliate against dog owners and may other reasons drive complaints, and anti-dog enforcement action, which many times may be conducted illegally.

The following text outlines methods of inquiry and enforcement which may be used by local officials in attempts to enforce ordinances in your community and suggested techniques of response. These techniques are entirely legal and based upon the rights of citizens as stated by the U.S. Constitution.

No breeder wants to have Animal Control come knocking on the door...but if they do, it will help if you know what your options are.

Remember, Animal Control is law enforcement. They are bound by the same Constitution as any other government agency. To protect yourself, you need to know your rights. These vary slightly one jurisdiction to another, but some general principles apply. One rule applies everywhere: never physically resist an officer.

When Animal Control is At Your Door:

1. Do not let them in, no matter how much they ask. Animal Control generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, or your permission. While regular police can enter in emergency situations when human life is at risk (i.e. they hear gunshots and a scream inside), there are few, if any, situations in which Animal Control can enter your home without a warrant. Simply tell them they may not come in.

2. If you let them in, anything they find in "plain sight" can be used against you. In some circumstances Animal Control officers, unable to find a legitimate reason to make an arrest, have reported building or zoning violations. This may include caging you attached to a wall without a building permit, that extra outlet in the puppy room, having more pets than allowed by zoning, even extension cords in violation of fire codes! No matter how clean your kennel, if they want to find a violation, they will.

3. Do not talk to them from an open doorway. Step outside an close (and lock if possible) the door behind you. This is necessary because:

A) Anything they see through the open door is "plain sight" and may be the basis for an arrest, or probable cause for a search warrant.

B) If they make an arrest or even feel threatened they are usually permitted to search for weapons in your immediate area. Do you keep a baseball bat inside the door for your protection? Even if you don't, once they step inside to look, they are in your home and may continue to search.

C) It is hard not to be intimidated by someone in authority. Some animal control is even done by local police, who carry guns. It is easy for them to get "in your face", causing you to back up into the home. Once you go in, it will be interpreted as an invitation to follow.

4. If they claim to have a warrant, demand to see it. In general, a search warrant must be signed by a judge. A warrant to search your home for dogs does not include an inventory of your jewelry box. A warrant to search your kennel in the garage or in the barn does not include a search of your home.

5. In some locations dog owners may have obtained special "breeder permits" that stipulate that Animal Control has your permission to enter at any time. If you have signed such a permit they still cannot enter against your wishes, since you can revoke the permission at any time. However, if you refuse permission it may allow them to cancel your breeder permit, so you have to weigh the consequences.

6. Warning - anyone in lawful possession of the premises may be able to give permission for a search. Make sure your roommate, babysitter, dog-sitter, housekeeper and other know that they should not let animal control into your home or on your property (i.e. backyard, garage, etc.).

How to Handle Questions:

1. Don’t answer any questions beyond identifying yourself for the officer. Anything you say to the officer in your defense cannot be used in court (hearsay). Anything you say that is harmful to you will be used in court (confessions are not considered hearsay). You cannot win, except by remaining silent.

2. Be polite but firm. Do not argue, bad-mouth, curse, threaten or try to intimidate the officer.

3. Do not lie to an officer, ever. However, it is NOT a lie to exercise your right to remain silent.

4. Keep your hands in plain sight. People have been shot by police when common objects, such as a wallet, were mistaken for a gun.

5. Do not touch the officer in any way. Do not physically resist an officer, no matter how unlawful his or her actions.

6. Don't try to tell your side of the story, it cannot help.

7. Do not threaten the officer that you plan to file a complaint for their actions.

8. If the questioning persists, demand to speak to a lawyer first. Repeat as necessary.

Gathering the Facts:

1. Get the name and badge number of each officer involved. If he/she does not volunteer this information, ask.

2. Ask the name of the agency they represent. Different agencies have different enforcement responsibilities.

3. Ask why they are there. Request the factual basis of the complaint and the identity of the complainant.

4. If they have other people with them (Humane Society, press, etc.) get the names and organizations for all present.

5. Note the names (and addresses) of any witnesses to the encounter.

6. If you are physically injured by an officer, you should take photographs of the injuries immediately, but do not fore-go proper medical treatment first.

7. Write down all of the information, as well as the date and time of the incident immediately, while details are fresh in your mind.

8. If you rights are violated, file a complaint with the appropriate body.

If You Are Arrested:

1. Remain silent. Answer no questions until you have consulted with a lawyer.

2. Don't "explain" anything. You will have time for explanations after you have talked to a lawyer.

3. Within a reasonable time they must allow you to make a phone call to get a lawyer or arrange bail. They are not allowed to listen to your phone call to your attorney, but they may "monitor" the rooms for "your protection". Do not say anything you do not want them to overhear; save that until after you are out on bail.

Telephone Inquiries or Threats:

You may receive telephone inquiries concerning the number of dogs you own and whether any dogs or puppies are for sale. Other questions may also be asked.

Your response should be to inquire "Are you interested in a puppy?". If the answer is "yes", ask that person for his/her name, address and phone number. Suggest that you or a responsible breeder will contact that person at a more convenient time for you.

If the answer is friendly and genuinely inquisitive, invite the person to look at your puppies.

If the question asked is "What is the price of each puppy?", simply say that puppies of this type are being sold for between "X" and "Y" dollars. Never say that you are selling them.

If the question asked is "Are these your puppies?", you should ask, "Why do you want to know?".

If you conversation indicates that the person is representing the county clerk's office or allegedly representing an official body, ask the caller for:

-Full name, title and phone number
-Agency's full name and full address
-Their supervisor's full name and phone number
-Nature of the inquiry (what it is about)
-Why the inquiry is being made
-How your name and phone number were obtained
-Ask that all future questions from that agency be submitted in writing

Preventative Measures:

1. Always keep you kennel clean and take good care of your animals.

2. Consider a P.O. Box or other address for business cards and advertisements. Keep descriptions of your location general (i.e. Southern California, rather than the name of the city where you live). The internet can provide anonymity for initial contacts. You can even buy a "remote prefix" to get a number from a nearby community forwarded to your phone or to a voice mail. Avoid local newspaper classifieds, they are often monitored.

3. Screen any potential puppy buyers carefully. Always be alert that they may be Animal Control or even Animal Rights working under cover.

4. Don't allow strangers into your home until you have screened them.

5. Be fair and honest in all of your dealings, and be on good terms with your neighbors. Most animal control contacts are complaint-driven. Some complaints may arise as harassment by people with unrelated grievances against you. It may be a disgruntled dog buyer or a cranky neighbor who doesn't like you parking in front of his house.

6. Anything about you that can be observed in "plain sight" from the street or sidewalk can become probably cause for a warrant. Even areas on your property open to visitors can be dangerous. Be aware of which areas of your home are visible from the outside and plan accordingly.

7. If you are confronted by Animal Control and turn them away, assume they will be back. Use the time available to make sure everything is clean and presentable. If you are over the limit on the number of pets, find friends who can provide temporary shelter for your dogs.

Whatever you do, stay calm and keep your wits about you.

Just say "no", no matter what threats or promises of leniency they make.

When in doubt, say nothing and speak to a lawyer afterward.

More BS on bite stats in Ontario

The Toronto Sun had a pathetic article today. Lassie Get Help, a well worth the read blog, has a good article in response to the Sun article.

The second article in The Toronto Sun was better. The girls from the "Pit Bull Co-op" had some good comments.

Gotta wonder at the timing of such an article within a week of killing Munchie? Is there some twisted logic going on here? Maybe a feeble attempt at justification?

Does anyone else smell guilt?

Outrage over Munchie's death

Here is an excerpt from Social Mange blog:
The owners of Munchie, Sheila Yeung and Angela Feng, were working on Munchie's appeal and its financing when Toronto Animal Services killed Munchie. They weren't even told that Munchie had been killed; a reporter told them when he called them for their reaction.
Get the whole story from this link.
I simply can't believe the insensitivity and lack of compassion. It appears that Toronto Animal Services notified the media without notifying Munchie's owners that he had been killed! Munchie's owners didn't find out their dog was gone until 3 days after the fact! I simply cannot imagine. My heart goes out to Sheila and Angela.
What we are asking everyone to do is write the editors of local and national papers and let them know what you think of this injustice, this outrage. Make sure you send to only one at a time so your letter doesn't go into a spam filter, and that your full name, address and phone number are on the letter.

Editor, Toronto Star - lettertoed @ thestar.ca (without the spaces)
Editor, National Post - letters @ nationalpost.com (without the spaces)
Editor, Globe & Mail - Letters @ globeandmail.com (without the spaces)
Editor, Toronto Sun - torsun.editor @ sunmedia.ca (without the spaces)
In addition please email Mayor Miller to let him know your feelings.
mayor_miller @ toronto.ca (without the spaces)
 

Charges dropped in dog owner case

Finally a bit of good news!
Caveat ran a story on a case August 1, 2007.  
I went to court (all 4 dates) and supported the person charged in this case yesterday. We withheld all information previous to the court date. I am going to continue to withhold the name of the person charged, but what I will tell you is this case took place in Barrie, Ontario.

I am pleased to tell you all charges were dropped against this young single mother!

The hell this woman went through in the past 7 months is enough to scare anyone. Luckily this woman got in touch with her vet immediately, who put her in touch with someone in the SBTCC. (Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada) That person in turn, put her in touch with me. We (DLCC) stood beside her every step of the way and offered support and resources. We referred her to a lawyer, who has done some outstanding work with the Sarnia case, this one and others.  Kudos to Christopher Avery.

Some points to consider when mulling this case over in your head.

* The woman's ex-mother in law complained to the city she was in fear of her grandchildren's lives because their mother had 'pitbulls'. The pup was 4 months old (hound cross) and the other was a year and half old JRT mix.

* The ACO officer initially left a card in her door to make an appointment to come and license her dogs. She let him in her apartment thinking he was there to simply get her to tag her dogs (which she was prepared to do). He began taking pictures of her dogs and asked her if she knew anything about the ban. She was puzzled not thinking she owned banned dogs. Her young daughters began to get upset and cry asking if the man was going to take their dogs. He eventually pulled her into the hallway and gave her until 3pm the next afternoon to surrender her dogs for death. The AC officer told the prosecutor yesterday he did not seize the dogs immediately because of the children.

* The AC officer showed up the next day and the dogs were not there. She told him "the dogs are gone". She then told him to charge her or go away and closed the door. The dogs were put in hiding and were never surrendered to AC. If they had been surrendered, they would have dropped the charges, but her dogs would now be dead! She was charged under DOLA 3 weeks later. Had the charges not been dropped, she could have been facing 6 months in jail and/or 10,000.00 fine!

Do you think this couldn't happen to you?

Well think again! This is happening all over Ontario!

Think you are safe cause you don't own a 'pit bull'? Well think again! There have been dogs of all shapes and sizes seized and killed for being accused of being a banned dog in Ontario! Over 2000 dogs have now been killed in Ontario. This number is growing at a rapid rate.  Caveat posted the checklist used in this case.

No one is safe and no one is immune.

We saved the Barrie dogs yesterday, but we lost Munchie this week. Rambo is still pending as are many other dogs sitting in pounds all over the province.

Sounds like some sick game doesn't it? Keeping score of how many we have lost and saved.. Nice game the Fiberals are playing with Ontario dog owners! Very sick indeed!

I am ashamed to live in this province!

Labrador mix named Munchie killed in Toronto

Munchie, the lab mix involved in a high profile case in Toronto, was killed on Monday according to the Toronto Star.

Munchie lab mix

Two young female Ryerson University students were the owners of Munchie.  Here is an excerpt from the story at Caveat:

The case began last September when Munchie escaped his downtown backyard. A scuffle ended with Munchie's quarantine and criminal charges against the man the dog is alleged to have attacked.
Sheila Yeung, one of Munchie's owners, said her neighbour had previously threatened to kill the dog and on that day he attacked the dog with a knife. When the dog broke free of his grasp, it ran into the house, she said.
Yeung, a 21-year-old Ryerson student, said she locked her door only to have the man break in, make threats and hold her at knifepoint. That man currently faces charges including uttering threats, break and enter and threatening with a weapon. None of the allegations has been proven in court.
But the man claims he and his dog were bitten. As a result, Munchie was quarantined and has remained with Animal Services since.
In October, Animal Services classified Munchie as a pit bull, and a threat to the safety of others.
Yeung said the dog is gentle and friendly. Munchie is a mutt who looks like a chocolate Lab, she said.
As of Feb 14, 2008 the court upheld a decision by Toronto Animal Services to have the 4-year-old dog destroyed. Munchie has 30 days to live, pending an appeal. Unfortunately this case cost the students over 15,000.00 in legal costs. An appeal would have been very expensive and difficult to win.  Munchie paid the highest price. He paid with his life.
In my opinion, it sounds as if these girls had a dirt bag neighbour with an axe to grind. He was in jail 9 days before offering up the information he had been allegedly bitten by Munchie. The police said he had a scratch and why would he wait 9 days before offering up this information?
Thank you again Michael Bryant and the Liberal government of Ontario, for providing the opportunity, to people with a vendetta, to put the victim and their dog on the chopping block! I have been actively involved in many cases in Ontario and most of them have a neighbour or family member (usually of the "ex" persuasion) who have lodged a complaint, which resulted in the dog ending up in custody and later dead.
Well known Animal Behaviourist, Cheryl Smith, performed an assessment on Munchie. Here is an excerpt from that assessment:
Even under less optimum conditions, Munchie did not display aggressive behaviour during the entire Assessment.
To read the full report of the assessment go to Munchie's blog.
Caveat was in touch with the owners of Munchie. The girls gave Caveat some details into the case. There are some disturbing details that Caveat wrote in this story. Check it out!
I am outraged at the state of this province! I have been involved in this fight against breed discrimination for the last 5 years, and even though I must say I have "toughened" up, my heart bleeds for the thousands of dogs that have lost their lives to this INSANE law!