The dispute centered on a now defunct Midwest City ordinance that banned dogs with "pit" or "bull" in their names as a danger to the community.Think about that for a moment.. Equal to saying that any person with the last name with the word "son" in it, is deemed a dangerous person. WTH? That is an interesting way of describing it.
Dear Mayor of Winnipeg and Winnipeg City Council;
I am writing to you regarding news articles I've read in the past couple days concerning the possibility of lifting the dog ban in Winnipeg.
First, I would like to say I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have been exposed to some facts.There is plenty of information debunking the age old myths surrounding support for breed bans. I am not going to waste my time or yours going into a long winded tirade.The facts support that;1. "pitbulls" do not exist. It is a slang term for a generic shape of dog.2. The purebreds American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier are extremely rare in Canada. There are breed registry numbers to support this. There are less than 1000 dogs all three breeds combined in Ontario.3. Breed bans do nothing to prevent dog attacks. This has been proven countless times which has resulted in repealing of breed bans in many countries, cities and jurisdictions globally.Propaganda is the only support for breed bans. Dangerous dogs exist in all breeds and cross breeds of dogs. It is not a breed or dog issue it is an owner issue.Calgary has had much success for 20+ years with its Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw. It targets irresponsible owners, has a 95% plus compliance of dog licensing and state of the art facility that hosts the Pound, Humane Society and Animal Control working simultaneously to protect the community. They reward responsible pet ownership and deal with those who are not. The program is revenue neutral and the best part is the citizens of Calgary are onside and support the bylaw because it allows pet owners and non pet owners to live peacefully.We have been living a nightmare of the dog ban here in Ontario for the past 6 yrs. Family pets have been taken from good homes based on how their dog looks. Innocent people have been stripped of their family pet and life savings trying to save their dog's life. The heartache is vast and the results are grim.People continue to be bitten and sometimes severely injured by all breeds of dogs. Breed bans have nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with how a dog looks. Breed bans are a draconian, barbaric legislation that target innocent people and innocent dogs. Real criminals don't care one bit about whether they are breaking the law much less what breed they own.Are there dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners? Yes of course there are and there are ways to deal with owners who pose a threat to the community. Trying to define a cross bred dog or target 3 very rare breeds does nothing to deal with that threat. 95% of all dog bites occur at home with the family pet or an adjacent property. Most bites happen because of lack of training and socialization of the family pet.Encouraging people to train/contain and socialize their dog goes a long way. Providing an environment that encourages people to be responsible works wonders.It is possible you just haven't been exposed to the facts but somehow I doubt that. The facts are as easy to find as the myths. Do the right thing. Using common sense and fair and equal treatment under the law gets you many more brownie points as a politician than following the propaganda. Do the right thing for Winnipeg and invite Bill Bruce from Calgary to speak to your council. He speaks globally about the Calgary model and how to implement it in your city.Thanks for your consideration,LG
Dogs will now be judged on their behaviour rather than their breedFrom CTV Regina Feb 18/11
A Regina man whose dog was shot by police trying to save the man in a medical emergency says he wishes the officer had another option besides killing his pet.
Cory Thompson suffered an epileptic seizure at his Regina home on Wednesday. Emergency responders initially weren't able to reach Thompson, who was in an upstairs room, because his American Staffordshire Terrier was blocking the top of the stairway.
"One of our officers attempted to enter the home when the dog approached quite aggressively," said Regina police spokeswoman Lara Guzik.
"The officer fired at the dog. There were four shots fired in total."
Not all of the shots hit the dog. The front entrance way to Thompson's house has bullet holes in the door, carpet, and floor. At least one bullet went through the floor and into the basement, hitting the television. Thompson says he wishes the police had another option beyond gunfire.
"If they would have had the proper net or rope and pole, they could have roped her and pulled her to where they had to pull her and tended to me," Thompson said.
Regina police have another option. They can phone the Humane Society to come handle overly protective dogs, but it isn't always feasible in medical emergencies.
"It depends on where our animal protection officers are," said Don Simons of the Regina Humane Society.
"Our officer was across town...that's why police felt they needed something quicker."
Police say the shooting incident will be reviewed.
Dog Licensing
BY C.L. CAULFIELD PUBLISHED JAN 7, 2011
Calgary revolutionized its approach to animal control. On a recent visit, Bill Bruce explained how Vancouver might do the same.
Asked to recall his worst day on the job, Bill Bruce, director of Calgary's Animal & Bylaw Services, doesn't hesitate. "It was five years ago, a hot summer. The shelter was overrun with cats. We had more coming in and nowhere to put them. I asked my staff to choose 16 animals to euthanize. To make a trained vet tech choose which animals will live and which will die, that's a horrible thing to ask. I promised my staff it would never happen again."
Bruce was at a dog-training facility in East Vancouver, explaining how he'd turned Calgary into a model-the model-of canine control. He'd used three simple principles: educate people on the benefits of dog licensing; remove barriers; and reward compliance. Calgary now has 108,500 licensed dogs out of a canine population of 122,325-over 90 percent compliance, one of the highest figures in North America. In 10 years, dog bites have become statistically insignificant even as that city has grown. Dog aggression and property damage incidents are more than half what they were in 1999. As a result, Bruce-an unassuming fellow who embodies the dog-training mantra of "calm, assertive energy"-is in demand as a speaker worldwide.
The audience in East Van, which included animal control workers from across Metro Vancouver, listened intently as he explained how he'd addressed Calgary's cat issue.
Bruce fast-tracked a cat licensing program he had in development. It led to 10,000 licences being issued in the first few months ($10 if the cat was spayed or neutered, $30 if not) and 20,000 in the first year. Today, Calgary has 49,500 licensed cats, which equates to 50 percent compliance (he knows because he conducts an annual census). The resulting revenue funds the state-of-the art Animal Services Centre Clinic, which, in turn, not only increases business efficiencies (for treating adoptable animals), but also subsidizes a no-cost spay-and-neuter policy for low-income Calgarians.
Calgary Animal Services has an annual budget of $5.4 million, generated not through tax dollars but through licence and penalty revenues. Bruce's program developed over years of asking the right questions before proposing solutions, enacting rigorous measurement and accountability standards, and-most importantly-regulating "the right end of the leash."
"One of the first things I did when I started this job was visit a lot of shelters," said Bruce, the son of a police officer, who grew up with German shepherds in the house. "Even though many of the shelter dogs were stressed or scared, if you asked them to sit, they'd sit. These were someone's pets. In North America we do not have a problem with pet overpopulation, stray animals, nuisance or vicious animals-we have a problem with responsible ownership. Virtually every animal that ends up in a shelter or on the street is there because a human relationship failed them."
A city's dog population is generally about 10 percent of the human population, so Vancouver has about 60,000 dogs. Only about 21,200 are licensed, which leaves millions in revenue on the table. The city's animal control budget is $1.7 million; about half comes from fees, the other half from tax dollars. Cats are unlicensed, and there are no specific bylaws governing cat ownership or behaviour. (Chickens, yes; cats, no.)
Metro Vancouver comprises 17 cities and district municipalities, each with its own approach to services and bylaws. In this mishmash of regulations, one of the most polarizing issues is breed-specific legislation, by which "vicious animals" are defined by breed or, even more controversially, mere resemblance to a breed. "Bull breeds," such as American pit bull terriers and Staffordshire terriers, are heavily restricted in some municipalities. These restrictions were generally knee-jerk reactions to media-bred hysteria or the result of political "defender of safety" posturing. About half the Metro Van districts-including West Vancouver, Richmond, and Burnaby-have breed-specific legislation. Vancouver did, too, until it was struck down in 2005; and Delta did until November, when council voted to replace it with non-breed-specific definitions of "vicious dogs." (In the document circulated prior to the Delta vote, Calgary's practices were repeatedly cited.)
"Is the issue really the breed," Bruce asked, "or is it aggressive canine behaviour? Once you think in those terms, you can find common ground with the people it affects and create fewer behavioural incidents.
"Breed bans don't work-it's been proven time and again. Ontario conducted a five-year study and its ban hasn't significantly affected dog-bite incidents. When you point fingers at a breed, you force people to take sides. And you alienate responsible owners."
Almost every credible body, including the BC SPCA, opposes breed-specific legislation. Yet New West, one of the most regulated municipalities, lists five variations of Staffordshire or pit bull terrier (which, many experts say, isn't even a recognized breed), as well as five obscure ones (including Argentinian dogo).
"It's useless," volunteered an animal control officer from New West. "Pit bulls are not the problem. We see more problems with German shepherds and rottweilers." Bruce, who keeps detailed statistics (and makes them available at Calgary.ca), added that most dog bites in Calgary are caused by small dogs, and that most deaths in Canada have been attributed to husky-type breeds.
Tom Hammel, Bruce's counterpart in Vancouver, called the presentation "inspiring" and "the right way to go." Despite a budget cutback in 2010, Hammel is determined to implement some of Bruce's strategies. He will stress licensing compliance, hoping to become self-funding. "Animal services touches every citizen. Their tax dollars support it, whether they have a dog or not. And our main mission is to protect people from dogs." Or, rather, from dog owners? Hammel chuckled: "Right."
When Bruce, who's about to celebrate 30 years of city service, was asked to name the best day of his career, he paused. "When I hear positive adoption stories. When our aggressive animal reports are down. When our return-to-owner rates are up. When I walk through our kennels and they're half empty because the animals went home. I've had many good days."
Premier Dalton McGuinty says there's still room in his election platform for new ideas, even though the Liberals haven't ticked everything off their lengthy to-do list.God bloody help us all.. have they not banned everything we consume, how we drive, what we drink even what shape of dog we can own! If they still have "to-do" items as they refer to, rather fall off the edge, right wing bullshit agenda is what I call it; this province is in even more trouble over the course of the next 8 months.
Explanation:
The word "pitbull", "pittie", "pit" any generic term other than American Pit Bull Terrier, which is the correct term for the pure bred breed, is a slang term. It is a term that was originally derived from shortening the longer version of the purebred name, but somehow was assigned to short haired/block head type looking dogs. Somewhere along the track of propaganda and urban legend the term became a label placed on either any dog that bit, showed aggression, or simply made the main stream media or for a large number of people to assign a label to a cross bred dog. You see the term being used a lot in shelters and rescues as a labeling system, as well as many dog owners use the term as a term of endearment or slang.
A cross bred dog cannot be identified by breed definitively. This is why reverse onus is used in law so the onus is on the owner to prove the dog is not a "pitbull". This is impossible since you cannot prove a negative. It is a loose loose situation for the dog owner and essentially it is a law that the owner is guilty until proven innocent.
This leaves us with purebred breeds being thrown in for reference, if you will. The only people truly protected under laws such as this are those who own the named purebred breeds. You definitely know you own a banned dog and can take measures to try to protect yourself. There are still holes of danger such as menacing which is open to interpretation which leaves an owner vulnerable. The purebreds in Ontario are extremely rare. There are less than 30 American Staffordshire Terriers in the whole province. All three breeds combined there are less than 1000 dogs in the province!
This leads me to another point that the dogs falling in the "pitbull" or SS substantially similar category which is how the law reads;
From DOLA
“pit bull” includes,
Dogs in this category are highly unlikely to have any genetic relation to any of the named purebreds! With less than 1000 in the province, it is highly probable or likely that those who have purchased pedigree dogs are out breeding them with dogs of other breeds or rather chances of this happening accidentally is mathematically improbable. This leaves a strong assumption that since it is claimed that "pitbulls" are plentiful, they are highly likely to be derived from breeds that are popular. Labrador Retrievers are among the top of the list in popularity. Boxers are number 8 in Canada. (I always use Canadian numbers since this information pertains to Canada). There are hundreds of purebred breeds that "resemble" in shape/coat type/size range that could be snared into this classification. Basically, no dog is safe but people are lulled into thinking their dog is safe because they think that "pitbull" is a breed and they actually can be identified definitely!
Shelters and rescues are full of "pitbulls"... they are one of the most abused breeds and nobody wants to adopt them...This is utter horse puckey!
How can the shelters/rescues be full of "pitbulls" when they don't exist? Why are they labeled as such by those, many of who supposedly oppose dog bans? Why are dogs labeled by breed at all? Why can't dogs be labeled by which dog fits the appropriate home based on behavior/temperament/size/grooming requirements etc?
I see all the time dogs labeled as "Staff" mix? or "Staffy" or "Staffordshire" mix. What in hell is that? If it is short for American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier, I beg to differ. I see this very frequently, in fact I bet you can do a quick search of any shelter/rescue site right now and find at least one dog labeled as such. Again, based on sheer numbers this is highly unlikely. Don't get me wrong. This is not a statement of an elitist. I am far from an elitist! What I wonder is why on earth you would label a dog as something you think may have a hard time finding a home simply because of the propaganda campaign and urban legends surrounding that label? If someone is told the dog is a cross bred dog of unknown lineage. Has short hair, medium size, great temperament, great with people, kids and cats... don't you think you may have a better chance at adopting the dog?
Dogs are dogs period. Make my day and prove otherwise! They are more alike as a species than different by breed. When you are talking breed, purebred dogs that are bred specifically for purposes may or may not carry traits into a cross breeding situation. Not all purebred dogs host the traits they were bred for in the first place ie. not all Labradors are retriever, and behavior (ie aggression) cannot be bred into a dog. Genetics are a crap shoot..
You simply cannot say a "pitbull" is a cross bred dog and dogs are dogs then turn around and make statements that "pitbulls" are harder to place, (which insinuates to those who don't know any better that they are dangerous or different, which is a common myth). For the record there is no proof that they are "more mistreated" than any other breed cause they aren't a breed. There is a certain percentage of animals that are mistreated but the classification is not by breed. It is classified by the idiot who is doing the mistreating and what their dog looks like. There are not any more idiots (per capita) attracted to short haired, cross bred dogs than any other breed. I think the ratio is the same for any breed. Obviously the more popular breeds or mutts will show up simply because they are popular.
Dogs should be classified by temperament, training level, size, grooming requirement then matched to an appropriate home regardless of how he "looks". To do anything less is a form of discrimination that is no better than those who legislate discriminatory laws!
Pet overpopulation in Canada contributes to so many dogs being killed and shelters/pounds/rescues being so full.More horse puckey!
I think the compliance for spay/neuter is at an all time high. Many people call for mandatory spay/neutering. This is an animal rights mantra such as the killing machines of PETA and HSUS. Mandatory s/n is a great way for them to achieve their ultimate goal of extinction of the pet. I won't go into this topic at length but there is plenty of information demonstrating the true intention of animal rights groups. They are powerful lobby groups that also back breed banning which is also another way of eliminating pets.
Making anything mandatory is a very slippery slope and not a train of thought I support in any way. I think education is the key.
If any municipality is looking to strengthen its animal-related bylaws and regulations, the City of Calgary have the model to emulate.
Bill Bruce is Calgary's director of animal and bylaw services and the municipality's chief bylaw enforcement officer.
What he and Calgary have done to address issues such as incidents of dog bites, dog licensing compliance and the enforcement of animal-related bylaws has become so renowned that Bruce has been invited to give presentations on their success to virtually very major municipality in Canada. To put it in perspective, Calgary's dog population is estimated to be about 110,000 animals. About 101,000 - or nearly 92 per cent of them - are licensed.
Anyone failing to license their dog could face a fine of $250. The same fine amount would be levied to anyone charged with not cleaning up after their dogs in public areas, which are regularly patrolled by enforcement officials in Calgary.
In terms of incidents of dog bites, there were 145 cases in 2008 and there have been 80 incidents this year. Most cities the size of Calgary, which has a population of 1.2 million people, deal with thousands of dog bite incidents each year, according to Bruce. If Bruce has to get a court order to have a troublesome or ill dog destroyed, that dog's owner pays the fee associated with having the animal put down.
If a dog has been declared vicious and bites again, its owner can face serious fines.
Bruce said the program in Calgary is a multi-step program, which emphasizes holding the owner accountable.
"We have built an entire program that is not an animal control program - it's a responsible pet ownership program. It starts from the first time we see trouble with a dog, It's a process of education and enforcement to create change to get the dog owner to take responsibility."
Calgary's responsible pet ownership program is a $5-million-a-year operation funded entirely from revenue generated from licensing of animals and penalties levied for violations. Licensing accounts for about 90 per cent of the revenue.
It costs $31 to license a spayed or neutered dog for a year in Calgary. Licensing an intact animal costs $52. An animal can be licensed 24 hours a day, seven days a week over the phone or on the city's website. Licences may be purchased at city hall or the animal control office and the bill can be paid at a banking institution.
Licensing a dog also means the animal will be returned to the owner without question the first time it gets lost or loose. The animal control office inserts a microchip containing a wide range of information about the animal in every pet it adopts out. Inserting a microchiping is not mandatory when licensing an animal in Calgary but pet owners are encouraged to do so.
In addition to licensing and effective enforcement, Calgary also has a range of public education programs which include teaching bite prevention to children in case they encounter a potentially dangerous dog.
In a nutshell, the responsible pet owner program in Calgary is based on four principles, including: licensing and permanently identifying the pet, spaying or neutering the pet unless the owner is a certified breeder or working with one, properly socializing and taking care of the animal's health and finally, not allowing the pet to become a nuisance or threat to the community.
We don't need a lot of complicated laws or take measures like banning breeds. We don't limit how many animals you can have. We just hold you to those four principles.
a.) "pitbulls" do exist other than as a slang term
b.) short haired mutts are different or more difficult to place
c.) that identifying the breeds of a mutt is definitely possibleThe only way to restore common sense is by;
-educating pet owners and non pet owners since they are affected by irresponsible owners
-implementing non discriminatory laws and bylaws. Equal and fair treatment under the law!
-encouraging people to be responsible through education and rewarding them for doing so
-getting communities onside through correct information and education
-enforcement of laws and placing the responsibility on the human not blaming the animal or when really insane the breed!If people train/contain/socialize their dogs, many problems in communities fall away.
For those of us who have adopted shelter/rescue dogs that are older and know the bond and payoff that happens when you do so, we must encourage others to want these dogs. We aren't going to achieve that by referring to them as "pits", "pitties", "bullies", "pitbulls" or any other label that is a term of endearment to us, but negative to those who do not know. They are dogs looking for a home that we and others will train/contain/socialize and love them forever... My advice to someone looking for a dog is figure out what qualities meet your families wants and needs. Do not judge by breed since you never know what breeds make up a cross bred dog. Cross a Whippet and a Jack Russell Terrier and you get what people may label as a McGuinty "pitbull". Cross a Visula and a Boxer and you will get what people may label as a McGuinty "pitbull".. There is no sense in judging by the cover. It is what's inside that counts! Dogs are dogs just like people are people.The former Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant said " If you own a pitbull you know you own a pitbull". By continuing to use the term "pitbull" to label dogs that are of unknown lineage and you certainly cannot tell by looking at them, it feeds the fuel that it is an identifiable breed! It is NOT.
It isn't about breed, never has been and never will be. It was always about looks. By anyone putting labels on dogs you are endangering their lives unnecessarily in this province. I have no problem with the term "pitbull" etc personally. I love dogs no matter what. It is being used in a negative light. Why not move away from the term and stop labeling dogs by breed at all.
Any dog is at risk of being labeled as a "pitbull" or substantially similar here in Ontario. We have had people here in Ontario with purebred Boxers, Sharpei's, any of the Mastiff's, Bull Terrier's Visula's, you name it.. they have been spit on, asked if their dog is a "pitbull", and some of them stopped by AC and charged for owning a prohibited dog!
Another huge problem here in Canada is the spew of US stats to make things look like "pitbulls" are running around killing children etc. In the US the purebreds of AST, SBT and APBT are much more common. The AST and APBT were among some of the most common breeds in the US where here in Canada the CKC litter registrations show the extreme opposite. There are only a handful of breeders up here. There were only 3 breeders here in Ontario for AST's when the ban was enacted. There are only an average of 3 litters a year in the whole country (of AST's).
My point is; why would a government set about banning 3 breeds of dogs that only less than 1000 dogs exist in the province? (and believe me they knew this information prior to passing the law!) They were not after the purebreds at all. In my opinion (and I'm not alone on this) they were never after dogs. They wanted a precedence to use reverse onus, warrantless entry, restrictions on mobility, etc to stand as law. They wanted to use it for other subjects and they have! Dog owners were thrown under the bus because in Canada, dog bites are not have have never been a common problem.
Fatalities happen approx one every 1 1/2 yrs in the country. There have been 2 fatalities in Ontario since the ban's enactment and neither were banned dogs! While people mire around in labeling/thinking it was the "thugs" who caused this (or irresponsible owners) etc the more the government wins! It is myth and BS.Educating people the real facts and letting the public know there are alternatives that work and actually do help protect public safety! A voting public do not like liars and crooks, nannies or being told what to do.
When we talk to people at shows like All About Pets Show and Woofstock etc, and we educate them about the actual law, how it works, how it's being enforced, the alternatives.. they are shocked and pissed off at the McGuinty Liberals! Makes my day! What I mean is; people need to know the nuts and bolts of breed bans. The real facts (debunking the BS and mantra) and learning the alternatives. That is something they can sink their teeth into!American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Pit Bull Terriers are banned in Ontario plus any dog looking SS substantially similar. No person will ever convince me this is not vague! When a law is vague, there are people who have no clue they are targeted which puts them in danger and their dogs lives at stake. This is against our civil rights in this country. Canada is not a free country and this should bother every citizen in Canada.
We had major portions of the law struck as unconstitutional at the Ontario Superior Court level then the portions were re-instated when the government appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada turned us down to hear our case. That is different than loosing. You cannot loose when they refuse to hear your case. Only about 10% cases are accepted by SCC.
The court battle cost us 3/4 of a million dollars here in Ontario. We have worked our butts off and managed to raise a good portion of that by fundraising since 2004.. that is an ongoing feat since we still owe just under $100,000. The government has unlimited resources of OUR money to fight us in court. We have filed numerous Freedom of Information claims but have been denied by the McGuinty Liberals as to the cost to the government to fight us in court. The provincial government funds all DOLA individual cases. The government sends council to every case fought in court as an intervenor. We struggle selling t shirts and buttons and they dip into the provincial coffers to kill innocent dogs and rake (many of them responsible owners) over the coals and ruin lives..This is a sickening business (getting our civil rights back)... long and very painful! I personally have lost countless hours of my life that I will never get back in the last 6 1/2 years. I have lived this nightmare and will never back down. We must get this law repealed!
