Chris Bentley tows party line...

A fellow Ontario dog owner wrote a letter to Attorney General Chris Bentley in March of this year. She finally received a response. I think you will be interested to read his reply letter, which I have permission to post for you all to see.
Here's the letter that was sent to the Attorney General:

Mr. Bentley, you may not have been the AG when the terrible Bill 132 was created, but you did vote for it and ultimately, you and all liberals are responsible for the death last week of Munchie, a chocolate lab cross that was ruled a pit bull, even when a world respected, Canadian Kennel Club accredited judge said he was not.
Ontario is no longer a nice province to live in, since you and your fellow Liberals came into power. Ontario is referred to on many blogs as the "killing fields of Ontario"... Travel advisories are going out on dog club web sites, not to travel to Ontario. Dog clubs are already showing signs of decreasing enrollments in their shows, some clubs have had to cancel dog shows that they have held for years. Tourism is being affected. Dog shows bring in money to the area.
I am asking you, as a citizen of Ontario and a concerned one at that, to take a real look at bill 132. It is a terrible law, many innocent dogs have lost their lives, many families have had their beloved companions torn away from them. Many people in Ontario do not realize that their dogs may be tagged pit bulls. When a CKC judge, Miss Mike Macbeth, who is respected the world over, when her opinion is ignored, then who has a hope if some Animal Control person says, "It's a 'pit bull'?
Mr. Bentley, bring in a law that deals with aggressive dogs, no matter what breed, one that deals with the behaviour not just a "look". Put money into education, teach children how to approach a dog, how be behave when approached by a dog. Teach children to respect animals (that might be hard when we have a government that does not understand this, but there are a lot of good people out there that do, get them on board). Look into the numbers, in Canada there has only been one death attributed to an alleged 'pit bull' in the last 25 years. Now I agree that even one death is too many, but what about all the other deaths that were not caused by 'pit bulls'. Do those people not count?
Instead of going after 'pit bulls', animal control must start to enforce the leash laws, making people responsible for their dogs, no matter what breed.
Bill 132 put too much power in the hands of Animal Control and took away security from the citizens of this province (reverse onus, if someone says a dog is a 'pit bull' or a menace, with no definition of either, then police, peace officers, etc. can enter a person's home with out a warrant, and it is up to the person to prove their innocence).
The time to act is now Mr. Bentley. Bill 132 was never an election issue, the citizens of Ontario were never asked their opinion, were never asked to vote on it, it needs to be revised, the breed specific part needs to be changed, instead of banning a look.

This is the response from the Attorney General:

Dear Ms. ******:
Thank you for your e-mail of March 14, 2008 regarding the Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA).
In examining the issue and preparing amendments to DOLA, including a ban on pit bulls, the Attorney General (Michael Bryant) and officials consulted with a wide variety of groups and individuals. Opponents and supporters were given ample opportunity to provide their opinions all of which were given the utmost consideration. While the sincerity of those opposed to the pit bull ban cannot be doubted, the priority is increasing the public safety of the people of Ontario.
There are now fewer pit bulls in Ontario, and consequently fewer opportunities for a vicious attack by a pit bull. Toronto's Animal Services has reported that the number of pit bull bites has dropped dramatically from 2005 to 2007.
No one disputes the fact that dogs of all breeds and types can attack.
Please be assured that the amendments toughened the penalties for the owners of any dog (not just pit bulls) that poses a danger to the public, by doubling fines up to a maximum of $10,000, and allowing for jail sentences of up to six months for individuals who own dangerous dogs that bite, attack, or pose a threat to public safety. The legislation also allows fines up to a maximum of $60,000 for corporations who own such dogs. Furthermore, the legislation now allows the courts to order that dog owners who breach the legislation pay restitution to victims.
We set high standards for responsible dog ownership in the province of Ontario, and we are building safe, strong communities for all Ontarians.
Once again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely
his sig here
Hon. Chris Bentley
Attorney General

I think the Attorney General should provide the data to support his statements!
We asked for a provincial dog bite registry to be set up but the idea was voted down at Committee and to date such data have not been collected. Mr Bentley is blowing smoke, in my opinion. (I wonder if he has ever considered a career in MSM?)
I also wonder if he has been told that Mr. Charney (lawyer for AG's office) said distinctly in court on June 28, 2007 that "There is NO SUCH THING AS A 'PIT BULL'...".
Some additional points to ponder:
- Roughly 4000 dogs have been killed in Ontario since the ban was enacted - because of their appearance.
- The population of all three banned purebreds in Ontario is less than 1,000 and only one purebred is among the dead.
- I'd ask Bentley how many 'pit bull' (assuming he can define that) attacks were in public pre-ban and how many occurred post-ban.
- Obviously, attacks on private property have nothing to do with public safety - not that there have been many of those either and not that there ever were.
- Then I'd ask him whether dog bites in general have decreased, remained stable or increased since the ban went into effect.
- Bryant logic (very different from regular logic) dictates that private property incidents are also going to be improved because, as he so eloquently stated, "no more pit bulls, no more 'pit bull' attacks".
- In other words, according to Fiberal propaganda, if pit bulls attack more than other dogs and if 'pit bull' attacks are more damaging than those from other dogs, then the simple act of eliminating pit bulls will
a) reduce the number of attacks and
b) reduce the severity of attacks.
That has been their entire argument from day one. It's a specious one but that hasn't prevented the government from using it to score political points with the general public through fear-mongering.
Of course, this is all just hypothetical, since we already know that this information, when it exists at all, is not only difficult and time-consuming to accumulate, but is basically meaningless once gathered
because:
a) attacking dogs are often identified as the breed of the day regardless of actual breed makeup, sometimes by animal control when both the victim and the owner have identified the dog's breed makeup as something else;
b) attacking dogs are often identified by the victim (in the heat of the attack);
c) minor bites by dogs perceived as the breed of the day are almost always reported while the same bites by other dogs are almost always NOT reported.
h/t Chicobandido and Caveat for your comments...

A heartfelt story of strife from a Canadian dog owner

Several months ago my husband and I had one huge dream dashed into the ground when we found out we could not purchase a home that we fell in love with, in Nova Scotia, due to the fact our dogs were banned. At that point I started to really read through the average dog bylaw which re-enforced with me just how vulnerable dog owners really are, due to the fact any dog could be termed "vicious" based upon breed, which would leave the owner one hell of a battle on their hands trying to defend their dog(s).

I also realized that many communities have dog limits and ways of stopping one from getting a kennel license. It has really hit me hard that in a so called "free" country I was going to be limited on where I could move to based on my breed of dog.

With deep sadness and new eyes I have really started to watch the "average pet owner" and ask a few questions, and the reality is there are so many people who believe a dog is "just a dog". I live in a small hamlet and most of the dogs here live outside and are fed crap food, I have no idea why most of these people even have dogs. What is the point of having an animal that never leaves your backyard? I have taken quite a few drives in various communities to see the very same thing.

The reality is the average person really does care about their dogs and are responsible owners, but we are the ones who are paying the price for the average attitude of "it's just a dog" from the average dog owner. How often do we have to say "punish the deed, not the breed". How many monkeys have opinions about our dogs that think our breeds are affecting what happens to them?

Oh yes the animal rights groups are doing a grand job indeed, because they know there are way too many dog owners who are in zombie mode, because "their dogs are not affected" (for now). Well WAKE UP ZOMBIES when the breeds that are being targeted right now are gone, do you really think your breeds are safe? Do you think those of us who have lost our dogs are going to stand up and fight for you, hell misery loves company and pay back is a bitch.

When you think of the money that is being spent showing dogs all over this country. The kind of income some owners are raking in and the big fancy jobs plus the threat of legal challenges, it really is kind of funny that all that money and power cannot stop REGISTERED dogs from being banned. The CKC has no power or, influence to overturn breed bans or, to stop communities from limiting the number of dogs one can have, maybe they will wake up when litter registrations hit an all time low and the cash cow dries up.

I have been really questioned myself as to why I am paying membership into a club that has not stopped my breed from being banned or, restricted in certain communities, in this so called free country. One does not need to be a member of the CKC to show their dogs nor, do they need the club when there are groups like Canuck dogs that inform you of which shows and doggy events are all over this country. A friend of mine told me that if I quit the CKC that I would lose my "Perm. reg'd" status, that really made me laugh as the word "Permanent" does not mean what it says.

Yes folks I am upset have been for several months, you have no idea what it is like to be so excited about a move that you have wanted for so very long, to find out you can't. Then to see the area of the world you so wanted to live in, having breed bans pop up left, right and centre.

I have had Rottweilers for over 19 yrs and have not been as fearful for my breed as I have been for the last few years. How many breeds need to be targeted before people will finally wake up and fight for dog ownership, before owning a dog becomes a thing of the past?

 

Loraine Jesse

Footnote:

Thanks Loraine for your story. There are more people than you would think who have gone through, and are going through a similar experience. We as dog owners cannot freely travel or relocate to certain other areas of our country because of the irrational and nonsensical legislation some communities vote in. Some have relocated without checking local bylaws before moving and found themselves in a position of having to either give up their dog or move out of the area. This happened in New Brunswick with a family who moved there for a job transfer. Their Rottweiler 'Shire' was in her families opinion well worth fighting for. They ended up in court.

Loraine told me in further conversation, she at one time lived in Calgary. She wasn't keen on living in Calgary, but here is what she had to say about the canine bylaws in Calgary.

I loved the dog bylaws in Calgary, which worked and re-inforced responsible dog ownership. If your dogs barked, you got fined, if they ran at large you got fined, if they bit someone you got fined big time. You don't have any breed specific laws, or limits on the number of dogs you may have. What you do have are rules and regulations that have to be obeyed or, you will be fined and or, eventually lose your dog (s), so they really do promote responsible dog ownership.

You are absolutely right on the money Loraine. Calgary has a comprehensive, logical and effective canine control bylaw that does not target responsible dog or cat owners. They have high compliance and they enforce the bylaw. The Calgary canine control bylaw targets the small sector of irresponsible/incompetent owners.  
As a pet owner, Calgary is the best city in North America to live in. I must agree with you, I don't find Calgary appealing to live in either. As someone who is originally from Saskatchewan, the prairies are too cold in the winter and Nova Scotia is more appealing (in my eyes anyway). No offence to those on the prairies, but the best thing about life is being able to choose. Where we live, what we do for a living, who we choose to have as friends, what breed of dog we want to own... oh wait a minute. 


Back to the grind of getting the ban repealed...

Altering animals comes with health risks

Information about the health risks surrounding altering animals is hitting the MSM.
Caveat had a post on this topic a while back.
MSNBC published an article entitled "Pet sterilization laws raise health concerns".
Here is an excerpt from the article. 

As legislators push for more mandatory spay and neuter laws for pets as young as 4 and 6 months in hopes of reducing the number of unwanted animals, critics are crying foul over research showing that such surgeries may raise certain health risks in dogs and therefore shouldn't be required.

Studies have shown that dogs that undergo spaying (removal of the ovaries and uterus) or neutering (removal of the testicles) are at increased risks for certain cancers, thyroid disorder, incontinence and some of the same behavior issues, such as aggression, that the surgeries are said to prevent.

Richard Stratton forwards a personal note

Author, (Lori's) comments first:


I must tell you, the very first book I bought about the American Pit Bull Terrier was a book called The Truth About The American Pit Bull Terrier. This book was published in 1991 and was the best selling breed book in 1994. 


When I first joined the DLCC, one of my initial tasks was speaking at the committee hearings about Bill 132. I used Mr. Stratton's book as reference many times in my 150 page submission.
In the post 'What is a Texas Red Nose', I posted an article by Richard Stratton which appeared in Bloodlines Journal 1975. I was in contact with our VP of the DLCC, Sandra Alway when writing this article. She knows Richard Stratton and contacted him directly. Both Sandra and Dick sent me thoughtful and heartfelt comments. 


Here is an introduction of Richard Stratton, by Sandra Alway.


I first met Dick at an ADBA Convention in 2001, the same year we were sanctioned as a club.  I had him sign a book for me and felt like a little kid going up to my idol.  He's was the sweetest man!!  And I started emailing with him back about then too.  I think it was 2005 when I got him to judge our show and if I remember correctly, he was 75 at that time so he'd be 78 now.  The Pres of the ADBA Kate was really worried about him and she said he was like her Grandpa so to be careful with him!  That old man never stopped surprising me over the weekend!  :-) 

 He got in the back seat of my truck so his wife Stephanie could sit in the front...she was ailing and a little bit unsteady on her feet.

Dick actually judged the afternoon show, gave a little speech wearing his funny bucket hat and judged 130 dogs before darkness fell.  He was up and down all day, down on one knee, crawling on the ground to get a better look at certain dogs...there was nothing "old" about the man in the ring!  Then we sat around dinner listening to him talk about all the people, the dogs, famous or not, he knew them all until well after 10pm.

And for Clyde and I, we got a really special treat.  Dick had a friend who was just a kid back in the 70's named Walt...he mentored under Walter Komosinski who died in 1988.  Komosinski is the bloodline we have.  Dick had asked if it was ok for Walt to come to the show and have dinner with us so we got to sit back and listen to stories about Komosinski and his dogs from both Dick and Walt.  It was a great day even if I didn't place in the show!  :-)  Just getting to have him out was the biggest treat!  And we still stay in touch with Walt.

He's (Dick) actually judging in BC this summer so it's good that he's still getting out and about.  That man will die in a show ring I swear and he'll be the happiest dead man.  

Sandra

Here is the note from Richard Stratton;

Hi Sandra,

Good to hear from you.  I'm hopeful that the article you reprinted will help reinforce your point.  I would just emphasize that even the early breeders were never breeding for color.  They just took them as they came and didn't care what color they were as long as they were game.  But, with all that tight breeding, there was a slide toward the recessive colors--including the red noses.  When you got a dog that was generally acknowledged the best of his generation, such as Centipede, everyone bred their females to him, and their daughters, too, if they got the chance, so most of the true Old Family Red Nose dogs came from him or his brother Cyclone.
Best regards,
Dick

Sandra sent along a picture of one of her Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull club members Paul, and his two intact males with Dick.  The red dog (Attila) has some OFRN and the black dog is Samson.  This was Attila's very first first place ribbon and boy Paul was thrilled that Dick was the one to give it to him! 

Richard Stratton resides in California. To learn more about Dick or purchase any of his books that are still in print visit his website.

What is a Texas Red Nose?

Quote from Sandra Alway, President of the Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Terrier Club and Vice President of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada. Sandra has been involved in American Pit Bull Terriers for 20 yrs.

“One misguided person said he had a Texas Red Nose “pitbull” of which there is no such thing. Maybe a “pitbull” with a red nose that was from Texas. Never heard of a "strawberry- blonde/ reddish color to describe an APBT`s coat and I’ve been in this game for quite some time. I guess people can make up what they want to suit them or make an ordinary dog seem special or exotic”.

When people say they have a "red nose" they mean it as something important.  It's been going on for years and it goes way back to the Old Family Red Nose collection of bloodlines. Not one of the people who have ever said "I have a red nose" have a clue what OFRN Old Family Red Nose actually is, or means.  To them, it's something special...something the so called breeder told them was important and of course, worth more money! Not necessarily, and usually not referring to a registered purebred dog.

The red nose is just a dilute gene.  But people refer to it as a breed within a breed....neither of which actually exists.  "Texas Red Nose" is, in some people's mind, a specific breed of "pit bull" one more worthy than others. Therefore there is no such thing as a breed within a breed and no such thing as a purebred ‘pitbull’. Only the American Pit Bull Terrier is recognized as a breed of dog. All other terms are slang terms meant for a shape of a cross breed dog.

But yes, technically, it all comes down to genetics. Nothing more; nothing less.  The OFRN bloodlines now are almost extinct in a pure form...there are very few true OFRN dogs left out there. When the old breeders died, many of their bloodlines did too simply by diversifying and being bred to other bloodlines outside the OFRN groups.

The Old Family line of the Red Nose APBT is considered the beginning of this strain in the breed. The Old Family line has been traced back to Ireland where the dogs were bred for the red characteristics, including the red coat, nose and muzzle, red claws and reddish eyes, as well as temperament, size, strength and fighting prowess. The Red Nose APBT is the result of this specific breeding.

When Irish immigrants came to America, they brought their dogs and the Red Nose APBT was common among them. Some of these immigrants not only owned the dogs, but were breeders as well. So the Old Family line continued to grow. These were the ancestors of today's Red Nose APBT.

Why does the Red Nose APBT have the red traits? Well, the Old Family line was created by breeding somewhat closely related dogs to attain specific traits, one being the red color. The red color itself comes from the appearance of a recessive gene. When breeders desired this trait, they would breed one Red Nose APBT with another, many times creating other "reds" with the recessive traits. Over time, the recessive traits weeded out the dominant traits, and the recessive traits became most common.

The Red Nose APBT has a look that people either really love or really hate, but it is always appreciated for its strength, powerful build and formidable appearance, like the rest of the breed — no matter the color.

Written by Richard F. Stratton

* Appeared in the January-February, 1975 issue of Bloodlines Journal.

First, an overview. No one really knows when these dogs first came to this country, but the great breeder William J. Lightner once told me that his grandfather raised them before the Civil War. It is quite possible that they were even here during the Revolutionary War. In any case, it is clear that dogs of this breed came from various parts of Europe, specifically Spain and Sicily. But little is known about these earliest importations, because nothing was written about them. (Books and periodicals containing information about dogs were rare in those days.) Their existence can be inferred from artwork, however. The most famous importations were from Ireland, and were generally made by the Irish themselves after they emigrated to this country.(The bulk of the Irish pit dog importations coincides or closely follows the great Irish migration that resulted from the famous potato famine.) Most of the Irish dogs were small and very closely inbred, but their gameness was proverbial-especially that of the group of strains that was known as the Old Family. The following article I wrote on the Old Family Reds (just one segment of the Old Family bloodlines) is reprinted from Bloodlines Journal.

 

THE STORY OF THE OLD FAMILY REDS

It has always seemed to me that the good old Pit Bull is a breed that is at once primitive and futuristic. He looks no more out of place in the ancient landscapes of 16th century paintings than he does in the ultra-modern setting. It is beyond my capabilities to imagine an end to him, for every generation seems to supply a nucleus of hard-core devotees completely committed to the breed. In any case, you can look into the murky past, and you will find it difficult to discern a beginning place for the breed, and, fortunately, the future seems to threaten no demise either.

Ours is a breed that has a definite mystique. Part of it, no doubt, stems from the fact that it is an old breed and deeply steeped in tradition. Old strains are a particularly fascinating part of this tradition, and the Old Family Red Nose is one of the better-known old strains.

The appearance of the red-nosed dogs always attracts attention, but it takes a little getting used to for some people to consider them truly beautiful. However, no one denies that they radiate "class." Characteristically, a dog of the red-nosed strain has a copper-red nose, red lips, red toenails, and red or amber eyes. Some think the strain was bred for looks. Others consider any dog that just happens to have a red nose to be pure Old Family Red Nose. It is hoped that the following will dispel such notions.

About the middle of the last century there was a family of pit dogs in Ireland bred and fought chiefly in the counties of Cork and Kerry that were known as the "Old Family." In those days, pedigrees were privately kept and jealously guarded. Purity of the strains was emphasized to the extent that breeders hardly recognized another strain as being the same breed. For that reason all the strains were closely inbred. And whenever you have a closed genetic pool of that type, you are likely to have a slide toward the recessive traits, because the dominants, once discarded, are never recaptured. Since red is recessive to all colors but white, the "Old Family" eventually became the "Old Family Reds." When the dogs began coming to America, many were already beginning to show the red nose.

The "Old Family" dogs found their way to America mainly via immigrants. For example, Jim Corcoran came to this country to fight the world heavyweight champion John L. Sullivan, and stayed to become a Boston policeman. He sent for dogs from his parents back in Ireland, and his importations and expertise as a great breeder have earned him a prominent place in American (Pit) Bull Terrier history. Many other Irish immigrants also sent back to their families to request for dogs, and the "Old Family" and related strains became firmly established in the United States.

At this point, there are several factors that are somewhat confusing to a student of the breed. For one thing, the term "family dogs" was used in two ways: It could mean a strain of dogs that was a family unto itself that was kept by a number of unrelated people in Ireland, or it could refer to a strain of dogs that was kept and preserved through the years by a family group. However, the old Family Reds seem to be of the first category. Another point that arises is that with all these importations from Ireland (and there were importations from other countries, too-including Spain), where do we get off calling our breed the American Bull Terrier! Well. ..that's a point! The breed does not really belong to anyone country or even anyone era! However, I don't believe many people are in favor of changing the name of the breed even though it is not strictly an American breed. For that matter, it is not really a Bull Terrier, either! But the name American (Pit) Bull Terrier has become part of that tradition we were talking about, and I think most of us prefer to keep it as a formal name for the breed.

Back to the “Old Family Reds”. The first big splash made by the red noses was back around 1900 when the great breeder William J. Lightner, utilizing Old Family Red bloodlines, came up with some red-nosed dogs that really made a name for themselves. Now Lightner once told me that he did not breed for that red-nosed coloration. In fact, he did not even like it and he only put up with it because the individual dogs were of such high quality. Eventually Lightner gave up the red-nosed strain when he moved from Louisiana to Colorado, where he came up with a new strain that consisted of small dark-colored dogs with black noses. He had given up on the other strain because they were running too big for his taste and because he didn't like the red noses.

At this point in our story we come upon a comical, but highly-respected, figure in the personage of Dan McCoy. I have heard old-time dog men from all over the country talk about this man. Apparently, he was an itinerant fry cook and not much of a success in life judged by normal standards, but he didn't care about that. What he did care about were Pit Bulldogs, and he had a wealth of knowledge about the breed. His uncanny ability to make breedings that "clicked" made him a respected breeding consultant and a most welcome guest at any dog man's house-even if he had just dropped off a freight train!

Always with his ear to the ground regarding anything that involved APBT's, McCoy got wind of the fact that an old Frenchman in Louisiana by the name of Bourgeous had preserved the old Lightner red-nosed strain. So he and Bob Hemphill went to that area, and with the aid of Gaboon Trahan of Lafayette, they secured what was left of the dogs. McCoy took his share to the Panhandle of Texas and placed them with his associates L. C. Owens, Arthur Harvey and Buck Moon. He then played a principal role in directing the breedings that were made by these fanciers. And from this enclave came such celebrated dogs as Harvey's Red Devil and Owens (Fergusons) Centipede. Hemphill eventually kept only dogs of the red-nosed strain. According to Hemphill, it was McCoy who first started using the term "Old Family Red Nose" for the strain.

Another breeder who was almost synonymous with the red-nosed strain was Bob Wallace. However, Bob's basic bloodline was not pure Old Family Red Nose. But in the late 40's he was looking for the red-nosed strain in order to make an "outcross." (Bob was a scrupulously careful breeder who planned his breedings years in advance.) Unfortunately, he found that the strain was nearly gone, most of it having been ruined by careless breedings. He managed to obtain seven pure red-noses of high quality whose pedigrees he could authenticate. The strain was subsequently saved for posterity and in the 1950's became the fashionable strain in Pit Bull circles. In fact, it was Bob Wallace himself who wrote an article in 1953 called "There Is No Magic in Red Noses" in which he tried to put a damper on the overly enthusiastic claims being made by some of the admirers of the strain. No more fervent admirer of the Old Family Reds ever lived than Wallace, but he obviously felt that the strain could stand on its own merits.

Many strains have been crossed with the Old Family Reds at some time in their existence. Consequently, nearly any strain will occasionally throw a red-nosed pup. To many fanciers, these red-nosed individuals are Old Family Red Noses even though the great preponderance of their blood is that of other strains. Sometimes such individuals will fail to measure up and thereby reflect undeserved discredit on the red-nosed strain. However, as Wallace said, the red noses should not be considered invincible either. They produce their share of bad ones as well as good ones-just as all strains do.

As a strain, the Old Family Red Nose has several things going for it. First, it is renowned for its gameness. Second, some of the most reputable breeders in all Pit Bull history have contributed to the preservation and development of the strain. People like Lightner, McClintock. Menefee and Wallace, to mention just a few. Finally, as McNolty said in his 30-30 Journal (1967) "Regardless of one's historical perspective, these old amber-eyed, red-nosed, red-toe-nailed, red-coated dogs represent some of the most significant pit bull history and tradition that stands on four legs today."

Is Denver's ban working? Not bloody likely!

An article in the Rocky Mountain News today sure makes my blood boil!

Ok, first of all, the first statement "bites dropped from 35 in 2005 to 9 last year".
Denver has been well known for 'enforcement' of the ban. Actually that would be the understatement of the year! Would it not make sense that if you eliminate or drastically reduce the numbers of a so called breed, there would automatically be fewer bites? If you took most of the red cars off the road, wouldn't there be fewer accidents involving red cars? I know hoards of people fled out of Denver city limits to avoid the door to door campaign or 'killing spree'. I hardly think this is something to brag about!
Doug Kelley, Director of Animal Control in Denver is one piece of work! How bloody moronic can a person be? (please don't answer that..)
Kory Nelson, Kelley and the band of buffoons sure amuse themselves spewing BS. I love it when fact is substituted with fiction.
I am sick to death of statements being splashed around, with NO evidence to back them up, and no accountability. I daydream sometimes that those who spew such hatred and BS could have karma happen instantaneously. (This wish extends to those who spew hatred and BS on any subject). Imagine if as soon as the spew begins to flow from their mouth, their tongue swelled to the size of a double bubble competition, and stayed so until a blathering recant came from the depths of their throat..? oh well , nice dream.
This statement infuriates me! 
From 2005 to 2007, the city euthanized 1,667 pit bulls - a number that doesn't sit well with animal rights activists.
The word 'euthanized' is a word which means to humanely put an animal out of misery. The correct term would be killed or murdered.  And I highly doubt this statement didn't sit well with the likes of PETA or HSUS or other animal rights activist groups, since they push and lobby for breed bans and killing of innocent animals. In fact they will show up in their van equiped to do the 'dirty work' themselves.
Equally infuriating are these next 2 paragraphs:
"Pit bulls are a demonstrably (vicious) breed that can inflict terrible harm," said Aurora Councilman Bob Fitzgerald. "As far as I'm concerned, the ban is having a positive effect on pit bull bites. I think we ought to leave it in place until I'm long dead." Bob, dude, what the h - e - double hockey stick is a vicious breed? And can't you get it through your thick neandrathal skull THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'PIT BULL'! Could we arrange the PETA van to make a quick stop at Bob's house?
Nancy Sheffield, director of Aurora Neighborhood Services, said complaints about pit bulls dropped from 532 in 2006 to 400 in 2007. Since the ban, bites by restricted breeds fell from 27 in 2005 to eight in 2006 before climbing to 15 last year. Nancy has been a regular irritant in the Denver news. Isn't it time for she and Bob to retire? She ain't no 'Mr. Rogers'! Will you be mine... would you be mine... will you be my director of neighborhood services?
I just have one more  comment, then I will leave you to read the whole article below in its painful entirety.
Three years ago, Florence Vianzon could walk her beloved pit bull, Isis, freely around Aurora without drawing disapproving stares.
Now she dresses Isis, which she rescued as puppy, in fluffy pink outfits and a pink muzzle, so people won't feel fearful. What the hell has the world come to? People feel they have to dress their dog in pink fluffy outfits so people won't feel fearful? Oh and what if they do feel fearful? Well, they call Nancy Sheffield to order the killing of your dog!
Nuff said on this subject.. off to stew some more..

Metro dog bans: Fewer bites in

Denver, more in Aurora

By April M. Washington

Originally published 05:09 p.m., April 20, 2008
Updated 12:47 p.m., April 21, 2008

Denver animal-control officials are lauding the city's pit bull ban after seeing bites drop from 39 in 2005 to nine last year.
But in other metro-area cities with bans, statistics on bites are spotty and hard to interpret, and some officials question how well breed-specific bans are working.
For example, Aurora last year saw a surge in overall dog bites, from 137 in 2006 to 172 in 2007, leading some City Council members to ask if that city's ban against pit bulls and eight other "fighting breeds" is targeting the right dogs.
"From what I'm seeing, we need to focus on dog attacks as a whole," said Councilman Ryan Frazier. "If all of the city's resources are focused on certain breeds, then what about the other dogs behaving badly?"
Aurora Councilman Larry Beer echoed Frazier's sentiment.
But in Denver, Doug Kelley, director of animal control, said there is no question the ban is effective.
One likely reason: "The word is getting out: Don't bring your pit bulls to Denver," Kelley said.
"This city is committed to the ordinance banning pit bulls passed in 1989," Kelley added. "What can be proven is that when a pit bull bites, statistically it's more serious than other dog bites."
Denver hasn't hesitated to enforce the ban.
From 2005 to 2007, the city euthanized 1,667 pit bulls - a number that doesn't sit well with animal rights activists.
"These laws layer irrational premise atop irrational premise and result in senseless destruction of companion animals," said Karen Breslin, an attorney who filed a failed lawsuit against Denver to stop the ban.
Effect debated
In 2005, when Denver reinstated its ban, Aurora, Commerce City, Castle Rock, Lakewood and Lone Tree adopted laws either outlawing pit bulls and other dangerous dogs or revising their vicious-dog ordinances.
They did it to protect themselves from becoming a dumping ground for pit bulls from Denver.
In the past three years, a review of dog bite data from those cities gives a mixed picture as to how much they're furthering public safety.
Bites by pit bulls and other restricted breeds have fallen some years and climbed others, and the number of overall dog bites is up in some places.
Lakewood, for example, recorded 217 bites in 2007 - 34 by pit bulls. In 2004, before the ordinance, the city recorded 183 bites (22 by pit bulls) and in 2003, there were 267 bites (21 by pit bulls.)
Commerce City's numbers mirrors Aurora's. In the years from 2005 to 2007, overall bites went from seven to 70 and 67, but breeds are not recorded.
"Can I sit here and say because of our ban the number of pit bull bites or incidents are down?" said police Detective Mike Sanders "No. I don't have clear documentation to say that."
But lawmakers in Commerce City and Aurora aren't likely to back away from their bans, given that some council members say pit bull incidents are down.
"Pit bulls are a demonstrably (vicious) breed that can inflict terrible harm," said Aurora Councilman Bob Fitzgerald. "As far as I'm concerned, the ban is having a positive effect on pit bull bites. I think we ought to leave it in place until I'm long dead."
Nancy Sheffield, director of Aurora Neighborhood Services, said complaints about pit bulls dropped from 532 in 2006 to 400 in 2007. Since the ban, bites by restricted breeds fell from 27 in 2005 to eight in 2006 before climbing to 15 last year.
"That's a significant improvement, and it's an indication that the ordinance is effective," she said.
'Outcast' treatment
Many pit bull owners remain angry about the bans, saying they feel like pariahs.
Three years ago, Florence Vianzon could walk her beloved pit bull, Isis, freely around Aurora without drawing disapproving stares.
Now she dresses Isis, which she rescued as puppy, in fluffy pink outfits and a pink muzzle, so people won't feel fearful.
"I'm basically treated as an outcast because of these irrational laws," said Vianzon, who filed a lawsuit two years ago challenging Aurora's pit bull ban. "I have to doll her up so people look past the muzzle and see her personality and not just view her as a so- called vicious dog. She's very much a loving part of my family."
Vianzon and others like her get support from the American Veterinary Medical Association and animal rights groups. They oppose breed-specific laws, arguing that dog-bite data is often skewed and fails to give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.
Karen Delise, a veterinarian who has written two books on fatal dog attacks, says breeding, neglect and abuse, environmental stresses, genetics and irresponsible owners can create aggressive dogs. She believes media reporting is biased against pit bulls.
"With little coverage or no coverage given to other breed attacks, it is easy to understand how the perception that pit bulls are responsible for the most severe and frequent attacks has come to be accepted as fact by many people," Delise said.
Dogs cause fewer than 30 deaths annually in the U.S., but pit bulls may get disproportionate blame because of their sheer numbers - they are among the most popular breeds in America, experts say.
Additionally, some owners still raise pit bulls to be aggressive and breed them to fight, giving all pit bull owners a black eye, experts say.
Fleeing the ban
Denver has successfully withstood a number of legal challenges since it adopted its ban in 1989.
Last month, a federal judge dismissed a suit by three Denver women who claimed the ban was unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging Aurora's ban filed by Vianzon and the American Canine Foundation is expected to go to trial this summer.
Attorney Karen Breslin said Aurora and Commerce City should follow in the footsteps of Parker and Lakewood and focus on irresponsible owners, not certain breeds.
Lakewood and Parker councils rejected breed-specific bans three years ago.
Instead, Lakewood revised its vicious dog laws to give judges wide latitude to fine owners or remove their dogs.
And a task force in Parker is currently proposing revisions to the town's ordinance that would provide incentives to pet owners who have their animals spayed or neutered to limit aggressive behavior, said Tawny Albright, a task force member.
"The council here is sensitive to the public's opinion, and 90 percent of the town is opposed to breed-specific bans," she said.
washingtonam@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5086
A tale of two cities and two bans
DENVER'S BAN
No pit bulls or pit bull mixes. On first offense, city puts microchip in dog's ear and owners must move dog outside city. On second offense, dog is destroyed.
HISTORY
* 1989: Denver adopts ordinance making it illegal for any person to own, harbor, transport or sell a pit bull mix in the city.
* 1991: Law survives Colorado Supreme Court challenge.
* 2004: Ordinance is suspended when a state law prohibits breed-specific bans.
* 2005: Ordinance is reinstated after the city successfully challenges the state law.
* 2008: Court dismisses suit challenging the constitutionality of ban.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Total bites Pit bull bites
2005 504 39
2006 493 14
2007 429 9
* 2,318 pit bulls or mixes impounded
* 1,668 euthanized
AURORA'S BAN
No pit bulls, American bulldogs, Canary dogs, Tosa Inus, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Presa Mallorquins, Fila Brasileiroser.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Totalbites Pit bull/restricted breed bites
2005 137 27
2006 137 8
2007 172 15
* 1,027 pit bulls and restricted breeds impounded in 2006 and 2007
* 809 pit bulls and restricted breeds euthanized

h/t caveat and KC dogblog for past links..

I am down to one nerve and Merrit Clifton is on it!

For those of you who may not know who Merritt Clifton is, if you disagree with breed specific legislation, I guarantee you, you won't like what Mr. Clifton has to say.
I received a heads up on an article out of Colorado about breed specific underwriting in the insurance business. 
Upon reading the beginning of the article, I got the impression the article was painting the true picture of skewed logic in insurance discrimination; however there always seems to be a but. (or butt, depending on which end you look at)
Quoting the HSUS is never a good thing, and beyond that quoting Merritt Clifton is definitely never a good thing!
Luisa, at Lassie Get Help, wrote a good article critiquing Merritt Clifton. This article has two parts. Here is the link to the second part. I think Merritt possibly did one too many hallucinogenic drugs in the 60's, because he seems to have carried some of the after effects forward into his studies and reports.
On the upside, my optimistic self truly feels there is going to be a distinct change of mind in the near future. I truly believe the 'thinking' people are starting to become more savvy to the fear mongering campaign. There is a cross section of the population, subject to the nonsensical spewing of the hard core monger. As for the rest of us, we are onto it...
Clifton, you are on the watch list! There is quite a colourful list of mongers, however thanks to technology we are hip to most. When you consider the odds of mongers per capita, there is a minute fraction of the population who dream up the fictitious crap. Fictitious crap that has NO scientific evidence, which at the end of the day you can try and try to stand behind a load of crap but it is still a load of crap. Unfortunately the media buys crap by the dump load. They must think it is a hell of a deal...
Keep the faith people that the people who follow the crap preachers are an even smaller cross section of the population. I like to call them trogs...

Looks like Rambo will live

The word is, Rambo (whether the owners case is won or not) is likely to live.
A motion passed at a Mississauga general committee meeting, which will change the city's "pit bull" policy. The motion would provide a second option for dealing with DOLA dogs. Under the new legislation, the dogs would be given a temperament test. If the dog passes, the dog would be allowed to be sent out of province.
Here is an article from the Toronto Star.
I am pleased with the leadership shown by the city of Mississauga. Here's hoping more cities in Ontario will follow Mississauga's lead. Actually, come to think of it, once precedence is set...

Mississauga standard operating procedure for AC

John Stewart has a post on his blog Random Access.
Here is an excerpt from the article:


Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish finally got her hands on the City's standard operating procedure for its animal control shelter this week. Now she thinks she knows why some officials seemed so reluctant to part with it.
Parrish is incensed by a part of the policy which outlines what will happen in cases where stray dogs are picked up and there is doubt in the minds of officials about whether or not it is a pit bull.
That procedure calls for a "pit bull identification voting card" to be posted on the kennel of the dog in question.
"An e-mail will be sent by the Animal Services Manager regarding the location of the dog and the time span for the vote to all full-time officers and shelter cleaner."
Staff shall vote within five calendar days including the day the card is attached to the kennel.
"All full-time officers and full-time shelter cleaner are eligible to vote. Each staff member is allotted one vote per animal. Once the allotted time has expired, the voting card shall be removed and brought to the animal services manager for a tally of the votes. Should a tie occur, the animal services manager shall have the final and deciding vote.
"If the dog is found NOT to be a pit bull, the dog may be moved up to the adoption room as long as it has met or exceeded all other adoption criteria as specified under the shelter's screening process. This shall include, but is not limited to, the dog's temperament, health condition and age.
If the dog is found to be a pit bull, the dog shall be euthanized in a reasonable time frame."
Read on for the rest of the article...
So I guess this means that if the janitor is in a particularly bad mood on any given day, when a short haired and muscular dog happens into the pound...


WHAT THE HELL NEXT? SPIN THE BOTTLE???  Oh crap.. I better not give anyone any ideas...
h/t Caveat See Caveat's article.. thanks for the heads up

How is your math?

Caveat posted an article about David Zimmer receiving an award from WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals).

In December, the AR group WSPA gave the Ontario Liberals an award for their commitment to animal welfare! Zimmer, who was Bryant's right hand man during the enactment of Bill 132 received the award. This award applied to the regulation on roadside zoos, which I personally agree with regulation, however what alarms me is the involvement and possible coaching by AR groups to our provincial government! Have other AR groups have stuck their sticky fingers into the bowl?

Remember this comment from Zimmer during the committee hearing in Barrie, January 27, 2005.

Ms. Holmes is a registered veterinary technician at the Bracebridge Animal Hospital. In an excerpt she asked the question:
Ms. Holmes: And why do we ban -- like I said, this is like trying to ban a particular race or religious group from this province. There are a certain number of dogs that are considered --
Mr. Zimmer: Because they're qualitatively different in the danger when they attack people and/or other animals. They're just qualitatively different.
Ms. Holmes: I have never, ever been attacked by a dog such as a pit bull type of breed. I have been bitten by a chihuahua, but we don't seem to be concerned about those. I've had a chow come at me; we're not concerned about those.
Mr. Zimmer: Did the chihuahua take your leg off?
Ms. Holmes: No, but he did draw blood.
Mr. Zimmer: So does a mosquito.

Caveat had a post back in December when the award was given out. I must have been out Christmas shopping. I don't know why I missed it. I have suspected an AR influence from the beginning since among other red flags, nothing makes sense to me.
Here is a clip from Hansard 2002 with a reference to WSPA. Does this not speak for itself?

Here is an excerpt:

 Radical animal rights groups in Canada certainly will use this new legislation as the basis for legal harassment and unjust prosecutions, and in fact already have stated their intention to do so. The cost of defending an unjust prosecution, even if there eventually is a not guilty verdict, is a burden that ordinary Canadians cannot afford, nor should they be subjected to this burden. The animal rights lobby has argued consistently that legal rights for animals cannot be achieved until animals are no longer considered property under the law. I want to give the House just a few examples that illustrate the true intentions of these groups.

    A lawyer for the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Lesli Bisgould, has been quoted as saying:

In fact, the legal status of animals today is analogous with that of oppressed groups in society over the past century, the right not to be seen as a means to an end, the right not to be property.

What are we (the dog community) going to do about this?

The dog community is going to have to get collectively stronger and stand up tall to end this erosion of dog owners civil rights.

I remember a time when I thought, this can't happen in Canada...

First they came for...