Sunday, December 7, 2008

An interesting study by Susan Hunter and Richard A. Brisbin Jr.

Here is a study that's an interesting read, Panic Policy Making: Canine Breed Bans in Canada & the US by Susan Hunter and Richard A. Brisbin Jr.

I kind of like the title.  That's exactly how it happens:  Hype, panic, bad law to 'protect the public'.  There are several examples in history of this being the method of passing laws, the US Patriot Act, a reactive law made in the heat of the moment, in hindsight is viewed as overly intrusive by many Americans.  I digress.
I found it interesting to read the background to the Ontario law, even though it is information already known to me.  Give it a read.  Then, as always, I ask you to please donate.  Tell people.  Get the message out that this is a bad law that needs to be changed.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

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  The Netherlands rescinded their ban after 15 years because it was ineffective.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.  

Sunday, November 2, 2008

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.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

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".

Saturday, October 25, 2008

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?

Friday, October 24, 2008

Ontario Court of Appeal holds up the ban

It's a sad day for rights in Ontario, and in Canada. 
Here is the ruling:
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 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.
Crossposted at Caveat

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

"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.

Monday, September 22, 2008

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.

Friday, July 25, 2008

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

Sunday, June 29, 2008

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′)
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

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?

    Saturday, June 14, 2008

    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.
    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
    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...

    Sunday, May 25, 2008

    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

    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...

    Tuesday, May 20, 2008

    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.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008

    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.  


    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,

    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.

    Monday, May 12, 2008

    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.
    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."