Why you should care about the breed ban

If the Ontario law stands, it could very easily spread like wildfire.  Even if you don’t care about “pitbulls” ANYTHING can be banned if the court decision stands, with no evidence of “apprehension of harm”.

Warrantless Search & Seizure – Replace “Pitbull” with any other item or any breed of dog.  Is it okay in Canada for authorities to be able to enter your home and seize it without a warrant?

Reverse Onus – Dogs are being misidentified every day by Animal Control Officers. If your dog is not a registered dog, and especially if it is short haired, it could be misidentified as a “Pitbull” and seized and killed.

In other parts of the world, LONG BACKED BREEDS, SHORT LEGGED BREEDS, SHORT FACED BREEDS, HAIRLESS BREEDS are on their way to being banned because the extreme Animal Rights movement is lobbying, saying it is cruel to continue breeding these dogs.  I expect to see any breed with ANY genetic disease or fault added to that since the goal of this movement is for people to no longer have animals held in “slavery” domestic pets.

Breed Bans do nothing to keep people safe.  In fact, in many areas where bans exist, bites have actually increased.  The Netherlands rescinded their ban after 15 years because it was ineffective.  Governments know that breed bans don’t work.  They have been given the information by the experts, which leads one to believe that the only motive they have for a breed ban is the power to ban. 

Non breed specific laws work.  Calgary has a wonderful law.  It works.  Bites have decreased, licensing has increased.  It is not breed specific and holds animal owners responsible for their pets.  

Goodbye Tess

I saw the subject title come up in my mailbox, “I Lost my Girlie” and I got chills. The AmStaff is one of the breeds included in the breed ban in Ontario; this title could mean one of two things, neither one good. To have your AmStaff wander off or escape the confines of a secure yard makes your blood turn to ice and panic starts to consume your mind. It is an extremely dangerous world out there now in “Onscario” for a missing AmStaff; owners and pets have been subjected to all kinds of atrocities since Bill 132 became law. Who knows what could happen to your pet all alone out there? If your dog is caught, she faces mandatory euthanasia or living out the rest of her life in a dog pound.

But to lose a beloved AmStaff to old age and ill health is heart-breaking and right now has a deeper impact on the owner left behind because of the ban that’s in place. A new Amstaff puppy would be a perfect solution to heal the pain of Tess’s passing; but with the current legislation this can’t legally happen.

Until Bill 132 is defeated, we AmStaff owners and lovers have no choice but to watch our breed of choice reduce in numbers one precious life at a time. 

Tess is the lost girlie who lived a long 14 years and brought joy to her owner every day of her life. To her owner, she was one of the most beautiful souls she ever had the pleasure of knowing because she was extraordinarily gentle and loving. The last 6 months were hard on both Tess and her owner; old age is not for sissies no matter the species. She remained true to her breed to the bitter end, stoic and dignified and she still tried to play. She would grab at her canine sibling’s ankles as he passed by but didn’t get up from lying down. She would roll and do her snapping thing clicking her teeth together as if she were a land shark on crack but never made contact with anything but a pillow or blanket or any other benign object that wouldn’t scream ‘OW’.

So, we’ll say goodbye to Tess knowing that she’s at Rainbow Bridge, free to run and play, muzzle-less and know that there is no breed prejudice there.

Rambo waves bye bye to ban-o-ville

Rambo, the red dog from Mississauga who went for a jaunt last Christmas day, has bid his last farewell to this ban ridden province.
There is a great article, by John Stewart, at the Mississauga Blog.
The article is entitled "Rambo finds the open road".

Seriously? No seriously?

Just when you think things can't get any further from the common sense factor, they do.
Let's recap the week.
Tuesday Oct 24 Mississauga formally announced they have changed policy toward enforcement of the ban. Animal control in Mississauga, population 650,000 people and it is Canada's sixth largest city. It is also worth noting it is the riding of Bob Delaney (Fiberal MPP who chaired the committee hearings for the ban). It is worth reading back through the Hansard for committee hearings to refresh your memory. 102 presentations, 86 opposed the ban.


Hansard to 
committee hearings Monday January 24, 2006


January 27, 2006


February 2, 2006


February 3, 2006


The vote February 10, 2006


October 24, 2008 the city of Ottawa quote: 


The City of Ottawa says it will act when a dog of any breed presents a threat to public safety, but the city is not trying to crack down on pit bull-type dogs because it doesn't have the resources to do so, and the law pertaining to the dogs is difficult to enforce.


Worth noting this is Premier McGunity's riding.
Same day, Oct 24, 2008 the decision is released from the appellate court not only denying our appeal but allowing the cross appeal from the government side reinstating what was struck in the initial decision by Justice Thea Herman.


All I have to say is WTF? Dude?

Ontario Court of Appeal holds up the ban

It's a sad day for rights in Ontario, and in Canada. 
Here is the ruling:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/october/2008ONCA0718.htm
So Ontario continues to ban a breed that does not exist, as well as three rare breeds that do exist, and anything that is substantially similar to those breeds.  Substantially similar.  If you own a dog with short hair, I'd consider moving if you like your dog.  Only where to?  What Province might next pass an unnecessary law, which by the way some municipalities refuse to even enforce because it's so convoluted and ridiculous?
I guess I still can't go home.  This ruling proves once again that the media truly is the largest powerholder in our country.  To have the bill introduced on a rash of unbalanced media coverage.  To have that coverage viewed in the same manner as numerical data would be viewed in both the legislature and in the court system.  Wow, that's an amazing gain of power for the media.
Visit http://caveat.blogware.com/ for a great article on this decision.  I can't say it any better, and I am, quite frankly, too depressed at the moment to even try.

Ottawa not enforcing the "pitbull" ban

There's a good article in the Ottawa Citizen today (thanks to Lori for sending it along).
It explains why the City of Ottawa, our nation's capital, is ignoring the provincial ban on the much-mythologized but nonexistent 'pit bull' type of dog.

Provincially banned canines common in Ottawa

Officials will act against dangerous animals, but lack resources to enforce law

Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Friday, October 24, 2008

OTTAWA - The Ontario government was on a mission a few years ago to rid the province of pit bull-type dogs and passed a law to ban them. But, in Ottawa, the animals are commonplace and city officials are opting to let them alone, as long as they behave.
The City of Ottawa says it will act when a dog of any breed presents a threat to public safety, but the city is not trying to crack down on pit bull-type dogs because it doesn't have the resources to do so, and the law pertaining to the dogs is difficult to enforce.
Susan Jones, director of bylaw enforcement for Ottawa, says that Ontario municipalities told the provincial government in 2005 that they would need some help from the province if it wanted a crackdown on the dogs. No assistance was sent.

According to this report, 300 calls have been received about purported 'pit bulls' since January, 2006, which averages to about 10 per month.  This sounds like a lot of calls until we discover that Ottawa averages 7,000 calls a year for animal-related issues, about 200 for dog bites.  The author points out that many of these calls are from 'pit bull' type owners seeking some clarification of the vague legislation enacted by Chicken Little Bryant in 2005.  So, out of 17,500 calls since January 2006, 300, or 1.7%, related to 'pit bull' inquiries.  Per the norm, we see that 98.3% of all calls to animal control do not involve 'pit bull' types.

The article goes on to explain that the law is unenforceable and that the costs involved in court battles make enforcement fiscally irresponsible.  The average case against a dog owner in Ontario is putting between $75 - 100,000 on the taxpayers' tab.

Speaking of court battles, I wonder how much the Attorney General has wasted in defending the law in court for the past two-and-a-half years?  It's a deep, dark secret since they are not responding to information requests, even from other MPPs.  I'll ballpark it at about $10 million.  If the MAG would like to prove me wrong, feel free, but I know how much money governments waste, since they don't have to worry about keeping costs under control.

The piece points out that a lot of complaints are from people who are afraid of 'pit bulls'.  Well, duh.  The intensity of the 20-year propaganda campaign has to be having some effect, even on people who know how media play their little games.

Add to that the fact that what media hysterics have been doing is actually advertising 'pit bull' type dogs as being the baddest asses on the canine block, and the result is that a certain type of person will go out of their way to get one of these slavering beasts to parade in front of their fearful (and sadly, ignorant) neighbours.  Bummer that they rarely, if ever, live up to their penny-dreadful reputation, eh?

It's a classic chicken-and-egg scenario.

We can see that Bryant's replacement, Chris Bentley, is still serving the Kool Aid to his base of fearful ninnies (and obviously imbibing himself):

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley replied in a letter that the existing Ontario law banning the dogs had reduced the population, and that allowing set fines may have the effect of minimizing the seriousness of the offences. He said in his letter to the councillor that the government won't allow the change to the law.

Bentley seems almost proud of the fact that thousands of innocent domestic dogs have been killed by the McGuinty government solely because his histrionic gasbag of a predecessor reacted to a situation he knew jack about, plunging innocent citizens who love dogs into a waking nightmare.

I guess he doesn't realize that the lead counsel for the MAG defending the ban in court in May, 2006, said at the end that they would 'take out the jail time, your Honour, and make it so that the vets have to come in to testify'.  Too late, Charney, we don't make deals with those who blithely install terror in the province of Ontario for no reason other than to grab a few headlines and bask in teh unrelenting stupid that ensues.  I wonder if Bentley also knows that the same lawyer stated emphatically at the Remedy hearing that 'there is no such thing as a pit bull', that the 'purpose of the law wasn't to stop dog bites' and that 'it was the purebreds we were after, we only threw in the substantially similar [in physical appearance] clause in case somebody had a purebred and lied about it.'

Speaking of lying.

Let's hope that nightmare ends soon.  Today would be good.

Here's the whole article in the Ottawa Citizen.

Crossposted at Caveat

"Pitbull" ban unenforcable and here is the proof

I think you are all acquainted with the Rambo case in Mississauga, where the dog went for a harmless romp last Christmas Day and wound up in the pound.
Hot on the heels of Rambo was another example of profiling in Mississauga. I guess the AC department didn't learn their lesson with the Rambo case that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'pitbull' and breed standards cannot be used to identify breed/s of dogs.
The couple profiled in the latest case in Mississauga brought to light a whole new angle not thought of before. The dogs owner/s are a registered nurse and health care worker. One of the requirements of the nursing college is that any conviction for an offence that could involve jail time, even if the defendant receives a discharge, must be reported to the licensing body.
Well, we are pleased to announce the city of Mississauga, thanks to Carolyn Parrish, has changed its policy. The animal control in Mississauga will not be actively enforcing the 'pitbull' ban amendment to DOLA.
Thanks so much to Caveat for keeping us up to date on the Mississauga situation. Many thanks to John Stewart at Mississauga News for your accurate articles. Thanks very much to Carolyn Parrish for standing on the side of the dog owners in Ontario.
Oh, and BOB DELANEY... BITE ME!

Living with breed specific legislation

I can't go home.  Well, I can go home but I have to leave two members of my family behind if I do because of bsl.  I certainly can’t consider ever moving back to Ontario, but even to visit is complicated.  I would like to take a road trip there with the dogs, but that's impossible.  In order to go back and visit my Dad's grave for the first time I had to leave my husband at home to care for our elderly, special needs dog who is not allowed inside Ontario's borders. Competition obedience is my hobby of choice.  I can't consider going to obedience trials with my young dog in Ontario - even if there were an exemption, why would I want to take her somewhere where she would be sneered at even more and have to wear a muzzle all of the time? 

I don't trust the media.  When I first started fighting against bsl well over a decade ago, I began to realize that the media wasn't getting the truth out there.  They seemed more preoccupied with selling sensationalism than facts.  I have to wonder, if the media does this with a relatively small issue (not small to me of course but in the grand scheme of things) what on earth is the truth beneath some of the larger issues?  This issue opened my eyes to the extent at which the media is willing to misinform the public.

My view of politicians has changed for the worse, which is saying something because my Father was a politician and in fact suffered a fatal brain aneurysm during a council meeting.  I feel now as though politicians would rather look good than do good, at any cost.  I feel betrayed, not only by those politicians, but by a system that would allow my rights as a Canadian to be taken away so quickly with the stroke of a pen, defying expert opinion, logic, facts and data. Why on earth would any government that wanted to serve its constituents enact legislation that doesn’t work when there is such a good example of what does work right here in our own country in Calgary?

Even as far away from Ontario as Vancouver Island, I hear from people that my breed is vicious.  That "they're banned in Ontario you know".  Bsl has created prejudice and fed false stereotypes.  It is no more than government sanctioned prejudiced based on physical appearance. 

I feel as though I am lumped in with dog fighters and drug dealers at times, and yet I am a responsible, law abiding, business owning, community club volunteer with absolutely no criminal record.  I rarely even have a glass of wine with dinner.  I am pretty much as straight arrow living as one can get.  My dogs are competition obedience dogs, well socialized, well behaved, stable, balanced animals.

I have an obedience trainer friend who used to have AmStaffs, who loves mine, and would like to have one again but just got so tired of the politics and being treated badly by people.

I live in fear that the ban will not be overturned even though it is clearly wrong and is not even remotely effective.  I fear that politicians in other municipalities and provinces are watching and waiting, the threat of a costly legal challenge being one of the hurdles that has thus far prevented bsl in some areas.  I feel as though at any moment, I could be dealing with a breed ban in my area.

I feel guilty that I can't afford to fight bsl full time.  I am constantly asking people to support the fight against it, asking for donations, raising awareness.  Sometimes I feel like I don't just own dogs, I own a mission.  My dogs don't get to just be dogs, they have to be ambassadors all of the time, and behave better than any other dog in the room, which is easy for them because they are good, but that's not the point.  It’s not fair to put higher expectations on them than on every other dog.

That is a little of how bsl has had an effect on my life.

Hansard links to OSPCA Act

Three days of committee hearings are posted on Hansard. There are 2 more days of hearings to be held which we will post here (once available) for your convenience.
It is important everyone educate yourself on what is being discussed. The OSPCA Act has the potential to effect every animal owner in Ontario.
July 21
July 22
July 23
July24
July25

Town of New Tecumseth bites in the canine bylaw department

Monday's New Tecumseth town council meeting brought disappointment to many who worked long and hard to bring common sense to the table, where the canine control bylaw was concerned.
The canine control bylaw had amendments proposed over a year ago by a town appointed working group consisting of an unusual cast of characters. There appears to be an hidden agenda, but it isn't quite clear what that agenda may be? The reason I suggest a hidden agenda, is when common sense input was put forth, it was turned down harshly for restrictive measures that impose punishment to dog owners who mind their own business, as opposed to the 1 - 2% that actually cause a problem. It is worth mentioning the exact same wording showed up at simultaneously in many communities from coast to coast in Canada. All other jurisdictions, that I know of, voted down the amendments, but not New Tecumseth.
In a nutshell, what was passed at the council meeting was, a limit of 3 dogs per household urban, 5 dog per household rural. There is a $500.00 per year license fee for owners who find they get caught with over the limit number of dogs not previously tagged. Potential business owners requiring a kennel license must own a 5 acre minimum of land to get a 'kennel license'. There are no stipulations whether you are breeding, training, boarding etc. There is no stipulation how many litters you produce per year or any other clear definitions in the bylaw. In fact it will be legal to breed as many litters as possible from 3 females that are say Great Danes, (in the middle of a subdivision) but you will not be able to breed one litter per year, or less from 4 Yorkshire Terriers without buying 5 acres of land! 
There is currently a 21% tag compliance (guesstimate based on population). That means nearly 80% of dog owners in New Tecumseth have not tagged their dogs. Call me silly, but of those 80% I doubt there will be a massive lineup at the town hall looking to purchase their tags by Aug 31. I guess the animal control department will be on the warpath as of Sept 1 to seek and/or destroy all dogs who dare be the 4th urban or 6th rural dog. After all, it is better to be expensive or dead than Dog forbid be a higher number than the town thinks dog owners can own. Doesn't say much for the idiot owners of one dog, does it?
I thought about giving the council of New Tecumseth the tin pot award however; no need to take this as a compliment, but there are many municipalities that are far more deserving than New Tecumseth.

tin-pot Definition

tin·-pot (tin′pät′)

adjective

Informal of little importance or value; insignificant, petty, inferior, etc. a tin-pot dictator

The band-o-monkeys who pushed for this bylaw amendment dragged in an OSPCA investigator. Mindy Hall, decked out in a bullet proof vest, spoke at the council meeting. With the puppy mill static board as a prop, she explained how limiting numbers of pets would aid the OSPCA in busting puppy mills. She was asked how limiting numbers of pets would aid in shutting down puppy mills, but there was no clear answer how. She was asked by another councillor if it mattered if there were a limit of 3 or say 10? Her reply was "no". Hmmmm

Footnote from the OSPCA:

A word about the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Ontario SPCA):Protecting animals since 1873, the Ontario SPCA is a registered charity comprised of 27 branches and 31 affiliated humane societies and SPCAs. Under the OSPCA Act, Ontario SPCA investigators have the same powers as police officers when enforcing animal cruelty laws. The Society’s concern is ensuring the welfare of all animals – large and small, wild and domesticated – through cruelty investigations, animal care and rehabilitation, government and industry advocacy, and public education.
Charitable Business Number 88969-1044-RR0002

Now, let me get this straight. The OSPCA is now going around sticking their nose in to municipal politics.

In an excerpt from the OSPCA website about pet limits:

Limit the number of pets allowed and encourage pet owners to sterilize their pets. The City of North Vancouver, for example, has by-laws making it mandatory for pet owners to sterilize their cats. Failure to comply can result in a fine of up to $2000. Many municipalities with animal control by-laws, including the City of Toronto, encourage sterilization by offering reduced licensing fees for sterilized animals.

The OSPCA website has a complete page dedicated about how to lobby the government.

Number 1 on their to do list for lobbying is:

1. Research the issue using all available resources. Request information (fact sheets, articles, news releases) from animal protection groups, such as the Ontario SCPA, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). The more facts and arguments you're aware of, the more effective you'll be.

OK, let me get this straight, first on the list is align yourself with AR?
The Ontario Fiberals received an award from WSPA in December of last year. That tells you how smart they (WSPA) are right there. Sorry, off on a tangent..
Go ahead, search WSPA, IFAW, not listed HSUS, PETA.. I guarantee you will find overlap of characters with all the groups listed. Overlap of activities too. I just did a quick search on the IFAW site and was reading an old news post from hurricane Katrina. They were referring to how they and the HSUS were rescuing an old lady and her dogs.. There was an investigation into the millions of donated dollars HSUS received for hurricane Katrina.
Another note that should have you alarmed, the Fib's passed amendments to the OSPCA Act several weeks ago giving them police powers and warrantless entry. Pretty hefty power given to a private charity! Given to an organization not governed or overseen by any public governing body. They are exempt from Access to Information legislation because they are private.
Excerpts from the act:
11. (1) For the purposes of the enforcement of this or any other act or law in force in Ontario pertaining to the welfare of or the prevention of cruelty to animals, every inspector and agent of the Society has and may exercise any of the powers of a police officer.
R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, s. 11 (1).
-----------
Entry without warrant
(2) Where an inspector or agent of the Society observes an animal in immediate distress, he or she may enter without a warrant any premises, building or place, other than a dwelling place, either alone or accompanied by one or more veterinarians or other persons as he or she considers advisable, for the purposes of subsections (3) and (5) and sections 13 and 14. 2006, c. 19, Sched. F, s. 1 (2
Authority to enter building or place, etc.
(6) Where an order made under subsection (1) remains in force, an inspector or an agent of the Society may, for the purpose of determining whether the order has been complied with, enter without a warrant any building or place in which the animal is located and inspect the animal and the building or place where the animal is kept and if, in his or her opinion, the order has been complied with, he or she shall revoke the order by notice in writing served forthwith upon the owner or custodian in the manner prescribed for service of an order in subsection (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, s. 13 (6).
Now, explain to me again why the OSPCA would need to drive all the way out to tin pot towns to meddle in their bylaws where pet limits are concerned? The question that comes to my mind is, have you ever heard of setting up the stage for mandatory s/n? They got away with it once, waltzing in, recommending their own agenda and council bought into it hook line and sinker.
Which leads me to another point. The public meeting date was set 3 weeks after council sent the bylaw to public meeting. What I mean is, the bylaw amendments were first heard by council June 2. A petition with 350 signatures was handed in at this meeting and 4 presentations from people in the community were heard by council. Council agreed the matter needed to go to public meeting, which means anyone may speak to council with information, suggestions etc. to consider. The kicker was, the bylaw (as is with limits and acreage restrictions) was included in the agenda for the council meeting which immediately followed the public meeting! Why bother with public input? Would this not suggest minds were made up before those who spoke at the public meeting wasted their breath? There were some good questions raised and asked of the OSPCA person. Council went ahead and passed the bylaw with pet limits, 500.00 fines for over limit dogs and land restrictions for business. My own councillor said quite plainly, she was convinced pet limits and restrictions were not the way to go until the OSPCA person told her pet limits will help shut down puppy mills. Her explained that if this helps shut down even one puppy mill, it will be worth people forfeiting their right to own more than 3 or 5 dogs!
The fact that this bylaw passed didn't really surprise me. Honestly, I wasn't really bothered by the content because I have little to no faith that the animal services department has any hope in hell of taking control of enforcement over the next few years. What has been lacking all along is enforcement of existing laws (21% tag compliance). The town finally implemented a data collection which they supplied the numbers for nearly the last year. The data collection started in July of last year. I have attached a copy of the data, such as it is. We certainly don't have a major problem with dogs here in New Tecumseth, which is a good thing cause we would be going to the dogs if this was the plan of attack.. no pun intended. There are currently an estimated 6027 dogs in New Tecumseth.
What really does scare me is the fact that numerous people from the community presented really great, effective alternatives to setting limits and acreage restrictions. I, as well as others presented the Calgary model and spelled out for them how they could incorporate it to fit an urban/rural area such as New Tecumseth.
It is also an important note that New Tecumseth currently has 4 different bylaws for canine control. There is a bylaw for dangerous dogs, noise (barking), excrement and canine control. The sample bylaw similar to the Calgary bylaw, incorporated all 4 bylaws into one tidy package with clear definitons and no restrictions on numbers or acreage. One councillor who made his stance clear from the get go, complained about a constituent who had been terrorized by a neighbours dog/s over a long period of time. He described lunging, attacking and biting. Threatening on private property etc. These are all issues falling under the dangerous dog bylaw, which was not up for amendment. The only bylaw to change in this process was the canine control bylaw. The other 3 remained as is.
In my opinion, the group appointed to bring this amendment to council (band-o-monkeys), which by the way consisted of the animal control officer, the person who has the pound contract, a volunteer from the humane society and the town clerk. The AC officer here works 15 hours a week and the pound is contracted out to a private kennel since we do not have a shelter or pound facility. The humane society here is an affiliate of the OSPCA and is completely volunteer and foster care. The little group who copied this bylaw (from wherever they dug it up) (which looks now like it may have originated from the OSPCA?) seemed to turn this whole charade into a pissing contest between us and them... In the meantime, the OSPCA pops their head in, mutters something about how we have ONE puppy mill here and setting pet limits will help shut down puppy mills, and wham bam thank you ma'am council buys into it.
Now that is scary!
So, the moral of this story is to inform you that for 14 months, myself and others in the community spoke out against this restrictive, ill thought out bylaw. I am not directly affected by this bylaw. I do not own more than the limit set nor do I have plans to. I do not own a canine related business or want to breed dogs. I have tagged my dogs with the town as long as I have had dogs.
The council chambers was far from full. There were few people who showed up to speak out. It was well publicized in the local papers prior to council meetings. Of the letters to the paper, none agreed with the bylaw amendments (just thought that was worth mentioning too). Where were all the people who ARE affected by this? Silence is consent. I have heard from some people their thoughts on tags, bylaws, laws and enforcement.
- tags are a money grab for the town. Why should I pay for tags?
- enforcement is next to nil. I have never had anyone at the door or questioning me.. I'll take my chances.
- I'll do whatever I want. Screw them.. (meaning enforcement officers)
What I know for sure is;
- those who are scofflaws will continue to do so no matter what laws or bylaws are passed.
- Until enforcement happens, many people will continue to take their chances.
- You cannot legislate responsibility.
- Restrictions and limitations drive compliant people underground. A bylaw should consist of setting a community standard then getting compliance to that level.
People generally have become self centered and complacent. That is the makings of waking up one day and there is no more dog ownership. Have you researched the agenda of animal rights groups? Do you think you know where the lines are drawn in the sand between what is animal rights and animal welfare. Animal protection or conservation. One issue is related to another is related to another. Mandatory spay/neuter is extinction. Breed bans are extinction. They all whittle away at dog owners rights and build strength in controlling animal populations but not in the way people think. Pet overpopulation is not proven. Why are we importing dogs from other countries. How many puppies do you see at shelters? People who work in shelters/rescue, cruelty investigative work and pounds see the worst of the worst. I don't blame them for becoming jaded. When all you see is the bad, it drives people to irrational thinking. Most people are pretty good pet owners, just like most parents are good parents. The dog business makes billions of dollars in everything from dog nutrition to dog apparel. Some people see dressing your dog up as cruel, but the point is people spend more on vet care, food and paraphernalia for their pets than ever before. Dogs are seen as part of the family. They live in people's houses with them, sleep with them, eat with them etc. Yes there are some people who abuse animals. Some because they are sick, some because they are not educated.
Why is there a need to impose irrational restrictions on the huge majority of good pet owners in order to stop the bad owners? A point was made at the council meeting:
One councillor to another "if you didn't drive so fast there wouldn't be a speed limit".
Well, first of all, let's compare apples to apples. Would my responsible ownership of 4, 10 dogs, whatever number you like, somehow endanger your life? 

If dogs are properly trained, contained and socialized. Given vet care and proper nutrition. If my dogs are not bothering anyone, why should the government on any level or anyone else be able to come into MY HOME and tell me how many, what breed, and what reproductive status my dogs should be?