Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Surprise, Surprise... Ontario "pitbull" ban isn't working

The Toronto Sun published an article today titled;

Ontario pit bull ban isn't working, Humane Society says.
The provincial government bit off more than it could chew by dooming pit bulls as Ontario's worst people-biters, the Toronto Humane Society says.
Results of a survey of municipalities, released Wednesday, show no significant drop in dog bite cases since the government passed Breed Specific Legislation in 2005 that resulted in "countless" pit bulls and related Staffordshire Terriers being destroyed.
In a statement, the THS called on the provincial government to amend its Breed Specific Legislation and " stop the punishment of innocent animals.
"This survey shows that the pit bull ban has not resulted in a reduction in the number of dog bites in Ontario," said the THS, which opposes breed-specific legislation.
A chart based on its statistics shows about a 10% drop in dog bite cases from 2004 to 2005, to just over 5,000. The survey showed a slight drop again in 2006, then the number of cases increased to about to about the 2005 level by last year.
In the THS release, spokesman Ian McConachie quoted then-Attorney General Michael Bryant telling MPPs in the Legislature "it's time that we make amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act that make our streets safer.”
The revised legislation outlawing pit bulls "failed to do so," he charged. McConachie said outlawing specific dog breeds "targets the wrong source of the problem.
"Dogs are not born violent," McConachie said. Instead, they are "made that way by irresponsible owners who train them to be that way or neglect them and they develop behavioural problems.
“If we want to reduce the number of dog bites we have to address the route cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals.” he said.
He said the survey shows the five-year-old anti-pit bull legislation "has not worked to decrease the incidents of dog bites.”

It is no big secret or breakthrough that all jurisdictions where breed bans are enacted, bites always rise. A good example of this is Winnipeg, which was touted as being "the model" the Ontario ban was shaped from.

In Winnipeg, the ban was put in place in 1990. That year there were 214 reported bites. Each year thereafter bites increased and by 1997 reported bites hit a whopping 328. That number is up by nearly one third of total bites! I guess the additional 114 Winnipeg'ers were happy they were so protected by the ban?

For the record, there is no such breed as a "pitbull" or "Staffordshire Terrier". Yes, there have been, in a conservative estimate, over 5000 mutts destroyed based on how they look, not behaviour here in Ontario since August 29th, 2005. The dogs that have been killed have been of unknown lineage. There have been no purebreds of the named three breeds seized or killed. There simply aren't enough of them.

There are only less than 30 American Stafforshire Terriers in Ontario. There were 30 but one recently moved away, I kid you not! He is enjoying life in a province that does not practice breed discrimination.

The records are kept by the CKC for numbers in the province, and with so few in the province, we all know each other, or at least of each other. When you see Humane Societies and such labeling dogs as American Staffordshire Terrier crosses, there simply, mathematically aren't enough of them in the province to be crossing around.

Labrador Retrievers are the most popular breed (by CKC reg. numbers), Boxers are number 8 on the list.. sort of makes sense the most popular short haired mutts are likely breed mixtures of popular breeds?

So much easier just to kill dogs for how they look, to appear something is being done about public safety... Call them some slang term to justify killing good dogs not dealing with bad owners of any breed of dog.

Oh yes, and lest we forget the man who spear-headed or orchestrated the Ontario breed ban (Michael J. Bryant) has killed more people than dogs (of any breed or non breed) in the past 2 years!

Also see City News today..

Friday, April 23, 2010

McGuinty banning sex?

In a shocking article today the headline read; McGuinty backs down on frank sex ed.

What is shocking about this headline is the "backing down" part. Since when does Nanny McFee listen to any sort of reason or what the people of this province actually want? 

Since McGuinty "backed down" from the sex ed proposal, you know what will follow. Banning sex! If you can't implement the legislation then fix the problem and just ban sex. If the kids never have sex, you won't have to teach them about it. That way there are no problems with irate parents and no problems with kids not knowing what to do when the time comes. 

The list of banned acts and items in this province continue to climb to record proportions. 

Never fear, he still managed to slide a ban into the day! From another headline today; Ontario to ban toilets that waste water.

Even if I agreed, I can't get past Nanny McFee and his ban - o - thon. McGuinty could come up with the best damn idea you ever thought of and I would want to wring his scrawny neck. He is the absolute worst premier this province has ever had. 

All I have to say is, thank the LORD they didn't go through with this sex ed plan and McGuinty show up to demonstrate for one of those awesome Fiberal photo ops they so love to do in schools. He is the "education" premier, remember...

Oh my goodness, creep me out.. I just killed myself with that mental picture.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Well well well... Brampton AC has been busy!

I am disgusted by the witch hunt happening in Brampton. I knew it was bad, but now we find out from a FOI inquiry there have been 55 dogs seized by Brampton Animal Control since 2005. 

There is an informative and interesting article in the Brampton Guardian today entitled "Dog seizures not an isolated case".  

According to statistics obtained by The Guardian through a Freedom of Information request, the city has been seizing and labelling many more dogs as “pitbulls” recently.
The city’s seizures of “illegal pitbulls” skyrocketed in 2009, a trend that appears to be carrying on this year with five seizures— including Brittany and Rambo— in January alone.
The dogs are seized for a variety of reasons, including requests from police (the owners are jailed and cannot care for them), strays, complaints, bylaw infactions, or they are turned over by owners who no longer want them, according to city officials.
The information reveals the city’s ACOs have identified and seized 55 pitbulls in a variety of situations since the provincial pitbull ban and a corresponding city bylaw came into effect in late 2005, Of those dogs, 34 were labelled “illegal” by the city and either euthanized (19) or shipped out of province (15) at the owners’ expense, when an owner was involved.
The statistics show over those five years, more than half of those dogs— 56 per cent— were seized in 2009. That’s a 138 per cent increase compared to the eight seizures of “illegal” pitbulls in 2008.
Only two of the dogs deemed to be illegal were American Staffordshire terriers. All the rest were mixed breeds, which are covered under both the provincial Dog Owners Liability Act (DOLA) and the city’s own dog bylaw. Both define a pitbull as a pitbull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire bull terrier, American pitbull terrier, or “a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those dogs.”
I am not going to go on about how there is no such thing as a 'pitbull' and breeds of cross bred dogs CANNOT be identified, because my face is rather blue. However I am going to bring up a point that I don't think the city of Brampton would know a purebred if it bit them in the A$$!

The article states;
Only two of the dogs deemed to be illegal were American Staffordshire terriers.

There are less than 30 purebred American Staffordshire Terriers in the whole province. 

There have been zero American Staffordshire Terriers seized in this province since 2005! So basically Brampton has no idea how to identify purebred dogs either. Now that is pathetic. 

You see, the way to identify a purebred dog is by identifying the registration papers obtained from the registering body upon purebred registration. Sometimes a dog has a tattoo or microchip identifying the dog as such. Visually identifying a dog as a purebred is absolute BS. 

The CKC 2006 registration numbers by most popular breed are:

Labrador Retriever 8749

Golden Retriever 5353

German Shepherd Dog 4461

Poodle (Std & Min) 2479

Shetland Sheepdog 2452

Yorkshire 2352

Min Schnauzer 1662

Boxer 1486

Shih Tzu 1353

Beagle 1314

Bernese Mtn 1167

Bichon Frise 1100

Pomeranian 1045

Am Cocker 1013

Pug 984

Rottweiler 934

Cavalier King Charles 906

West Highland White 903

Havanese 872

Siberian Husky 834

English Springer Sp. 818

Bulldog 778

Short Coat Chi 777

Doberman Pinscher 763

Soft Coated Whtn 763

Newfoundland 758

Min Sm Dachshund 713

Boston Terrier 612

Staffordshire Bull 104

American Staffordshire 45

TOTAL 47550

These are numbers for Canada .

As you can clearly see, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are both extremely rare breeds in this country. Translation, I will eat my shoe is any of the animal control department in Brampton have ever met an American Staffordshire Terrier before.

Another news flash.. see previous post..

Peel Health statistics show there has been no corresponding drop in reported dog bites in Brampton since the ban was put in place. The number of dog bites reported has remained steady over the last seven years, according to Paul Callanan, the region’s director of environmental health.
So how well is the witch hunt working for you? So if there is no decrease in bites (I guess not since you are ripping good dogs with no complaints against them out of loving homes) so why is it exactly you are seizing and killing innocent dogs? 

 When asked about the spike in seizures in 2009, Jamie Lowery, the city’s commissioner of community services, said the city was acting only on complaints when dogs were seized, although he did not specify how many were public complaints and how many— like the seizure of Brittany and Rambo— were generated through witch hunting ACO patrols and licencing renewals.

He said increases and decreases in seizures are “unpredictable” as a result.
“It’s like snow,” Lowery said. “It snows heavy one season, and not so much the next season.”
 It's like snow??? WTF? Lowery is comparing ripping family members out of loving homes and killing innocent animals to weather patterns? Breaking down the door of taxpaying citizens and forcibly taking their dog would be better compared to hunting with torches and pitchforks. 

The city’s bylaw is worded the same as the provincial act, but Lowery specifically blamed the act for being vague.
“It’s not the city, it’s the legislation,” he said. “That is clearly the biggest problem we have. That (DOLA) is very vague and ambiguous. It speaks to certain breeds, but it also brings into question about characteristics, so we are charged with (trying) to enforce or interpret the legislation. It’s vague at best and the worst part is there really is no relief valve in the legislation for an appeal. It doesn’t say whether it’s one per cent pitbull or 100 percent pitbull. That’s it.”
However, he said the city is doing a good job of enforcement.
Municipal bylaws have the power to write bylaws as they see fit. I'll most certainly agree, the amendment to DOLA is vague, however if you can read at all, the law uses the word "may" not "shall" or "must". 

The ban was added to DOLA as an optional enforcement using the word “may” A proceeding may be commenced is the exact wording.

In an excerpt from Hansard during a debate at Queen’s Park:
MPP Peter Kormos made a statement regarding municipal participation during one of the many House debates over the legislation.  This is an excerpt from Hansard:

"That provoked me to put questions to ministry staff about exactly what the Bill does: "Does the bill require municipalities to participate in this ill-conceived so-called pit bull ban?" "No; it merely enables them." Oh, I get it: These are the tools in the toolbox"

Here is a math quiz for you now.

What is 1% of 0?
Answer:  0

What is 100% of 0?
Answer: 0

There is no such thing as 'pitbull' for pitty sake! It is a slang term for a short type of dog. This could include any old mix but most likely NOT originating from any of the named purebreds since they are all so incredibly rare! All three breeds combined there are less than 1000 in the province! 

It doesn't matter what the breed makeup is. If a dog is dangerous, deal with the owner. If it isn't, leave them the hell alone! Nuff said. Ottawa has come out and publicly stated they will NOT actively enforce the ban. As far as I know they are still in Ontario? Why can't Brampton do the same? 

The article tells the story of Gail Crocker and how her son's dog Rocsi was as she put it;  “They forcibly took them right off my front porch. Right out of my arms.”

Brampton needs a smack down. 

Municipal elections are this fall. Get out to vote people. These people are voted in by you. They can just as easily find themselves at the back of the unemployment line. Send a message that we aren't going to take this anymore. 

We the dog owners of Ontario want our rights back. We've had enough. 

GONE TO NEWFOUNDLAND. Missus, shown here with five-year-old Kayden, was one of 19 Brampton dogs labelled "illegal pitbulls" by the city last year. Her owners insist she was a boxer/American bulldog mix just like Brittany and Rambo, but they were forced to give her up and ship her out of province.

Scotland has come to their senses...

KC Dogblog reported today that Scottish parliament passed a Bill to repeal their ban.

This is amazing news! 

There was a 150% increase in dog attacks.. (no surprise there and common for bite incidents to drastically rise after implementing a ban). 

Here is a news flash quote for you..

  "It is clear that a dog's breed is only one factor which may affect its behavior. Attempting to define the law purely in relation to breed has failed to protect the public."

Be sure to read the rest of KC Dogblog's post. Hit the links too. Interesting reading.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Brampton city hall should have a DANGEROUS sign posted on the front door!

Brittany and Rambo were set free today. An independent vet deemed the dogs were not "pitbulls" so according to the negotiation both dogs were allowed to go home after this more than 3 month ordeal. 

The city of Brampton put a condition in the agreement that both dogs would be classified as "dangerous dogs" and have signs posting this on their property.

Remember, there were absolutely NO complaints or incidents prior to the seizure of both dogs by Animal Control. This was publicly stated by the city. 

Why is it then that both dogs would be classified as "dangerous dogs"? Well the short answer is that Rui Branco fought the city for over 3 months, spent the first 2 months with no access to either dog. After March, the owners were allowed one visit per week, only one person at a time. The Branco's watched while their dog lost weight, went through a bladder infection, and were not allowed to bring in their own vet to check on the condition of the dogs. 

Would you agree to having your dogs classified as dangerous and having to muzzle them if it meant getting them back home? Well that was the choice facing the owners of Brittany and Rambo. As I stated two posts ago, this kind of bullshit is going on all over the province. 

"Turn over your dog or it will be killed". 

"Send your dog out of province or it will be killed". 

"Your dog is a 'pitbull' so now you prove it isn't". 

The Branco's were told they would have their dog back in one hour, but they needed to turn her over to them so they could identify she was not a "pitbull" first. The police and animal control broke down the Branco's door and took Brittany, a mild mannered and friendly dog, away in a catch pole. The owners were hysterical with confusion and fear. 

Well, that hour turned into a $20,000 fight and nearly 3 1/2 months later. The stress and terror these families went through is downright outrageous! That is simply why the city of Brampton should have a DANGEROUS sign on the front door of City Hall. The dog owners and dogs of Brampton are in serious danger at the hands of the city. 

Shortly after the seizure of Brittany, animal control came to the home of Mrs Gaspar, demanding she hand over her dog Rambo for destruction. She was informed that Rambo's sister was taken at gunpoint from the Branco family and Joseph Branco was on his way to jail. She was told the same would happen to her if she didn't comply. Mrs. Gaspar speaks little English and is an elderly woman on a pension. She was unaware she was targeted by this law and didn't know her rights. 

If animal control comes knocking at your door, do not turn over your dog! Know your rights.  

Here is the article from the Brampton Guardian, who I would like to personally thank for the great coverage. The Guardian stated the facts, which is more than other MSM establishments can say. For that, I thank you.

Dogs freed, ruled not pitbulls
 They’re free!

An independent veterinarian has ruled Brittany and Rambo are not pitbulls, which means after 97 days in the pound, the two dogs are finally home.
Following an examination at the Brampton Animal Shelter Friday, the veterinarian issued a report Monday stating, based on his examination, neither dog is a pitbull as defined by the Dog Owners Liability Act.
“It’s a huge relief,” said Rui Branco, whose family owns Brittany.
They were released from the city’s Animal Shelter Monday.
Branco has fought a lengthy and costly battle with the City of Brampton. The Branco and Gaspar families have maintained all along that the dogs are not pitbulls, and even had their family veterinarians willing to testify to that effect.
However, Brampton Animal Control Officers ruled the two dogs were pitbulls, apparently based on what the family says was a city employee’s mistake years earlier. That mistake was made when a city Animal Control Officer identified the two dogs’ father, Tyson, as a pitbull.
Branco said, just like Brittany and Rambo, Tyson was not a pitbull, either, and the family was completely unaware that a city employee had designated him as one.
Also, Branco said, despite repeated requests, he has never seen the paperwork the city has said it has classifying Tyson as a pitbull. The family no longer owns Tyson, but they still own the mother, Jersey, a purebred boxer.
Brittany and Rambo were seized from separate homes Jan. 13.
There had been no complaints of running at large, aggression or biting. Brittany was seized when an Animal Control Officer went to the Branco home to renew a dog licence for Tyson and spotted her.
The Brancos complained that the city seized Brittany with the help of Peel Regional Police, but without a warrant. City officials maintained there was “exigent” circumstances surrounding the seizure of Brittany, giving them the right to seize without a warrant, but would not elaborate.
Brittany has been described as a very friendly dog by those who have come in contact with her, including the city’s own veterinarian who examined her early on.
After the dogs were seized, a city veterinarian was provided photographs of the animals and ruled they were pitbulls.
“I’ve never once doubted Brittany was not a pitbull, which is why from day one I fought this so hard,” Branco said. “If I truly believed I was guilty of breaking a law I would have shipped her off to save her life and in the process saved thousands of dollars.”
Branco has spent more than $20,000 in legal fees and just recently agreed to the independent vet’s examination in order to get the dogs back. If he had taken the city to court, he estimates it would have been many more months before the case could be heard, and thousands of dollars in addition. He was concerned about the dogs’ wellbeing because they were being held in the city pound for so long.
Despite the vet’s ruling, as part of the agreement with the city, the owners had to agree to allow the dogs to be designated “potentially dangerous” and they must wear muzzles when out in public.
Branco paid the $50 for a licence and picked up Brittany, but was shocked when he found out he would have to post a big red sign on his fence declaring a “dangerous dog” lives at the home.
“I have never seen anything like that in Brampton before,” Branco said.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Can you spell E-X-T-O-R-T-I-O-N?

Brampton, you got some ssssplain'in to do...

So the merry-go-round of negotiations seem to be coming to an end for the owners of Brittany and Rambo in Brampton.

Both Brittany and Rambo have been held since January 13th, of this year.

To refresh your memory, here is a copy of the handouts we distributed at the All About Pets Show Easter weekend.

The Branco Family story..

The Victims
Rui, Ines & Joseph Branco and their beloved dog Brittany, a 1 1/2 year old Boxer-American Bulldog cross.
The Incident
On January 13, 2010, a City of Brampton Animal Control Officer came to the home of Rui, Ines and Joseph to collect a licensing fee for a dog that has not been in their home since 2008. The same dog, Tyson, is the father of Brittany. Upon seeing Brittany, the Officer stated that if Brittany was the progeny of Tyson, she would be put to death as he was licensed as a restricted “pit bull” and she was born after November 26, 2005. However, Veterinarians had identified Tyson as an American Bulldog-Boxer cross, and Brittany’s mother, also owned by the Branco’s, is a registered purebred Boxer. Veterinary medical records also identified Brittany as a Boxer-American Bulldog cross.
The Seizure
The Animal Control Officer dismissed all paperwork, and claimed that she would be seized and put to death. Six police cruisers and two additional Animal Control Officers arrived shortly at the Branco’s home to seize the docile dog that has no history of aggression or complaints. The police forced their way into the home without a warrant, damaging the home in the process. The City stated publicly there were no incidents leading to the seizure of Brittany.
Brittany was identified as an illegal dog in the Province of Ontario because her father, Tyson, was allegedly licensed as a restricted “pit bull”. Tyson became licensed as such when Rui’s brother, Joseph, moved from Caledon to Brampton and the same Animal Control Officer recorded him as a restricted “pit bull”, even though Joseph was completely unaware and Tyson had never been identified as such before. To date, the paperwork showing Tyson licensed as a "pitbull" has never been produced by the city of Brampton.
The Aftermath & Implications
Brittany has been held since January 13, 2010 at Brampton Animal Services. Veterinarians have identified her as a Boxer cross, although the City has disregarded this professional opinion. The Branco family was not permitted to visit Brittany until March, when the City of Brampton suddenly changed their tune, and allowed visitation.
The Future
The Branco family continues their fight with aid from the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, and support from the public. 

The Gaspar Family story...
The Victims
Mrs. Gaspar & Rambo, a 1 ½ year old Boxer-American Bulldog cross.
The Incident & Seizure


On January 13, 2010, a City of Brampton Animal Control Officer came to the home of Mrs. Gaspar, demanding she hand over her dog Rambo to the city for destruction. She was informed that Rambo’s sister Brittany was taken at Gunpoint from the Branco family, Joseph Branco was on his way to jail and the same would happen to her if she did not comply. Speaking little fluent English, and an elderly woman on pension, Mrs. Gaspar handed Rambo over. She was unaware that she would be affected by Breed Specific Legislation and what rights she had.

Rambo had no previous complaints, nor a history of any violence or aggression towards people or animals. They insisted Rambo is an illegal dog in the Province of Ontario because his father, Tyson, had been licensed as a restricted “pit bull” and because Rambo was born after November 26, 2005. However, veterinarian records had identified Tyson as an American Bulldog-Boxer cross, and Rambo’s mother is a registered purebred Boxer.
The Aftermath & Implications
Rambo has been held, along with his sister Brittany, since January 13, 2010 at Brampton Animal Services. Mrs. Gaspar was not permitted to visit Rambo until March, when the City of Brampton suddenly changed their tune, and allowed visitation. The city also denied access of a veterinarian on Mrs. Gaspar’s behalf.
The Future
Mrs. Gaspar continues to fight for her beloved dog with the support of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada and members of the public stretching across North America. Without the funds to fight the city in court, the Gaspar family is fortunate to have Rui Branco fighting for the release of both Brittany and Rambo.

There is an article in the Brampton Guardian today explaining the city of Brampton and the owners of Brittany and Rambo have reached an agreement.

City, dog owners reach settlement

One veterinarian will decide fate

Brittany, left, and Rambo, right. Brittany and Rambo will soon be free— either back home with their families, or out of province in a new adopted home. The City of Brampton and the dogs' owners have reached an agreement that will have an independent veterinarian examine the two dogs and decide, once and for all, if the mutts are pitbulls, or not.
An independent veterinarian will be brought in to settle the dispute between the City of Brampton and two local dog owners.
A veterinarian who has had no prior involvement in the dispute will make the final and deciding judgement call on whether or not Brittany and Rambo are pitbulls under the Dog Owners Liability Act and the city’s dog bylaw.
The vet’s examination is expected to be done as soon as possible.
The city’s animal services staff say the dogs are pitbulls, the families say they are boxer/American bulldog crosses. Both sides say they have documents from veterinarians who support their stances.
The city and the Branco and Gaspar families have been working toward a settlement for three months in the hope of avoiding a long and costly court process. The dogs were seized from separate homes on Jan. 13 and Rui Branco hired a lawyer with the intent of taking the city to court over what he said was an illegal seizure, without a warrant, and the misclassification of the dogs.
A settlement was reached just recently, and approved by city politicians behind closed doors at Wednesday’s council meeting,
If the veterinarian, who was not named in a city news release issued after council approval, rules the dogs are pitbulls, the city will hold them for an agreed-upon period of time while the owners make arrangements to find homes outside of Ontario.
If the vet finds the dogs are not pitbulls, or he cannot reach a conclusion, the dogs will be released immediately to their owners, with conditions.
If they are released, they will be designated and licensed as “potentially dangerous dogs” under the city’s bylaw, which would require them to be microchipped and spayed/neutered, and to be leashed and muzzled when out in public.
The dogs have been impounded for 92 days so far.

Here's the part I don't get..

If Brittany and Rambo are not found to be so called "pitbulls" and the city has stated publicly there were no complaints or incidents with either of the dogs; why is there a condition that the dogs be muzzled when out in public?

Why should the dogs be designated as "potentially dangerous dogs"?

I guess it is easier for me to voice my opinions sitting here at my computer while my dog lays at my feet..

However I would have to say, Brampton should be held accountable for their actions and if the dogs are not deemed "pitbulls" then the dogs were illegally seized. There should be a public apology and compensation to both families for damages!

Thank goodness I don't live in Brampton!

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Fantastic editorial in Boston Review

h/t Fran for finding this gem...

There is a fantastic editorial in the Boston Review.

First of all, there is a stand alone statement in this article that I am going to excerpt in bold. It has been a while since I have run across such a profound statement.

Today’s pit bull bans tell us more about ourselves than about the breed. The drive to label, condemn, and exterminate has become a moral enterprise.

The editorial is titled;

Dead Dogs
Breed bans, euthanasia, and preemptive justice

Irony in Baltimore

There was a sad case explained in an article in the Baltimore Sun.

There has been a stereotype we short haired dog owners have refuted stating; "pitbulls" are the dog of choice for thugs..

Well now the thugs are shooting the "pitbull" owners! In a bizarre case, the shooter, who has quite a record, feared a young man's dog and shot him. The dog owner that is. The 21 year old victim, out walking his dog early in the morning was a youth leader in the community. 

Here is the story,

Shooting suspect feared victim's pit bull, police say

A 21-year-old involved in youth leadership programs was shot and killed in front of his Cherry Hill home in November by a man who apparently felt threatened by the victim's pit bull, Princess, according to police charging documents that detail the arrest of one of the suspects. Police said a witness heard the gunman "yelling at the victim to keep his dog away from him." Angelo Dangerfield, who was taking the dog for her morning walk, yelled back "that his dog does not bite," the charging documents say. Police said the witness then heard two shots, saw Dangerfield fall to the ground on Spelman Road and watched the gunman tuck a handgun into his waist. Detectives on Friday arrested Ronald Edward Hall, 33, who lives in the 2800 block of Cherry Hill Road. He was charged with first-degree murder and has a bail hearing scheduled for today. A second suspect, believed to be the man who pulled the trigger, has not yet been arrested. Dangerfield was shot about 6 a.m. Nov. 25. Princess had been circling Dangerfield's body when police arrived.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Article from Denver.. Pitbull group won't roll over.

Below is a good article from The Denver Daily News. There is a place to leave your comments at the end of the article. 

Pit bull group won’t roll over

Says city is spending thousands enforcing, defending the city’s ban
Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer
Thursday, April 8, 2010 
 Denver continues to spend thousands of dollars paying attorneys to defend and settle lawsuits stemming from the city’s ban on pit bulls.
There are at least eight individuals who have or are currently pursuing or considering lawsuits against the city. Denver resident Desiree Arnold recently won a $5,000 settlement from the city after her dog Coco was killed by animal control officials, according to the mayor’s office. The January settlement also inspired procedural changes to Denver’s ordinance.
The city is also spending thousands of dollars defending itself against a lawsuit filed by pit bull advocate Sonya Dias, who was forced to sell her home in Denver to save her pit bull Gryffindor. City officials have outsourced the case to a private law firm, paying Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC $150 per hour to handle the case. An Open Records request by a member of pit bull advocacy group The Pit Bull Band revealed that Denver has already paid the law firm $4,769 in December and $10,337 in January.
The spending comes as the city deals with a $120 million budget shortfall.
“We’re putting pressure on the city — there’s just going to be more and more,” Dias said of the lawsuits. “This law, it’s old school — it’s yesterday. They’re saying that we have a problem, but instead of identifying what the problem is, they’re just rounding up and killing dogs.”
Denver has killed 2,266 pit bulls since enforcement of the city’s ban resumed in 2005. The number has tapered off over the years, with only 13 killings this year out of 53 impoundments. Animal control officials do not have an explanation for the decrease.

Coco the dog
Coco was one of the dogs killed in 2008. Coco was rounded up from Arnold’s Denver residence in 2003, but released to a third party. After finding out that Coco’s new home was not a safe place for the pit bull to live, Arnold took Coco back in 2008. On June 23, 2008, Coco was seized again.
This time, Coco was scheduled to be killed on June 26, 2008. Arnold requested an administrative hearing, but the hearing was denied because it was the second time Coco had been rounded up. Arnold hired an attorney, Karen Breslin, who fought for Coco. The pit bull somehow was taken off the kill list and a hearing was granted.
But on July 31, 2008, animal control officers testified that Coco was a pit bull prohibited by Denver ordinance. Still, the dog only possessed 11 of the 25 attributes listed on the checklist for pit bulls. The checklist in and of itself has been questioned by pit bull advocates and dog lovers.
Questions were raised in October 2009 over innocent dogs being killed by city officials because they were wrongly identified as being a pit bull. A dog named Dexter was determined to be a pit bull by animal control officers, but an administrative judge ruled that the officials had wrongly labeled the boxer-mix a pit bull. Advocates believe hundreds of dogs may have been wrongly identified. 
Coco’s fate was learned on Aug. 5, 2008, when an administrative judge upheld that Coco was a pit bull and therefore prohibited.
Arnold and Breslin asked Doug Kelley, director of Animal Care and Control, to grant Coco release to a rescue facility. But Kelley declined the request, pointing out that policy at the time required animal control to kill pit bulls seized a second time.
“The ordinance really doesn’t even require that the dog is released, so there’s really a policy process on whether the dog is released on a second impoundment and what the situation is because what the ordinance says is that the owner has to provide assurance that the dog won’t come back again,” said Kelley.
On Aug. 6, 2008, Coco was killed and his remains were returned to the Arnold family in a black garbage bag.
But just three weeks later, another pit bull, Forrest, who was seized twice by the city, was granted release to an outside rescue facility. The case received widespread media attention, which is believed to have played a role in Forrest’s release.
Following Forrest’s release, the Department of Environmental Health implemented a new policy extending to all pit bull owners the opportunity to place their seized dogs with reputable shelter facilities — even after a second seizure. 
Arnold wonders why she wasn’t given that opportunity after Coco was seized the second time. She says her family still grieves Coco’s death.
“We still talk about him all the time,” said Arnold, pointing out that Coco had never harmed a person or animal. “He was our family dog — I called him my son.”

Policy changes
The January settlement also inspired changes to the city’s ordinance banning pit bulls. Documents are now available to the public and to animal control officers that spell out rules and procedures for when a dog is seized. The documents include operating procedures for animal control officers; a guide for owners when their dog is seized; and an official notice form to dog owners explaining that their dog has been seized.
Another policy change stemming from the settlement requires unanimous agreement from all three animal control evaluators in order to label a dog a pit bull.
Councilwoman Carla Madison finds it “a shame” that the city is spending thousands of dollars enforcing and defending its ordinance. She has proposed a bill that would permit pit bulls if owners take the dog through temperament testing, muzzle it, and pay special licensing and insurance fees, to name a few proposed restrictions. But she has little support from her colleagues.
“Right now I don’t think anybody’s looking at repealing the law, and so I guess they feel like they need to just go ahead and defend what they can,” said Madison. “In time, maybe we can add the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Act, which might help ease some of these cases so that we might not be in this position. It’s unfortunate that we’re in the position where we now have to defend this law.”
Madison says there’s talk of putting together a task force to work with neighborhood groups about possibly implementing the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Act.

Support for ban
But Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz says she recently held a survey on the issue, which received 1,839 responses, and 78 percent of her constituents said they were in favor of the ban.
“That’s the will of my voters, so if it takes defending it, I’m willing to defend it,” said Faatz. 
Meanwhile, the mayor’s office defended using an outside law firm to defend the ordinance, arguing that the city has for years used Wells, Anderson & Race to assist with cases.
“The firm has been helping the City Attorney’s Office at a time when budget reductions have reduced staffing levels,” said Eric Brown, a spokesman for Mayor John Hickenlooper. “In this particular case, the attorney handling the lawsuit retired and Wells, Anderson & Race took over specific parts of the case on the city’s behalf.”
Brown added that the Arnold settlement was “in the best interest of both parties.”

Expensive to enforce
Pit bull advocates, however, believe the city is spending a quarter of a million dollars per year on enforcing the ban — money they believe would be better spent closing the city’s shortfall. City officials have been unable to provide the Denver Daily News with a cost analysis of how much it costs to enforce the ban, stating that there is no specific line item for the enforcement, and that the cost is part of overall animal control costs.
“The city needs to take another look at this law because it’s not going to stop,” Dias said of the city’s spending to enforce and defend the law. “There are going to be more (lawsuits,) and aside from the monetary impact of it, which of course is huge … this law is an old way of thinking.”

Monday, April 5, 2010

All About Pets Show

Another All About Pets Show is finished for another year.

Huge thanks to Terrie who runs the show! She does an amazing job of organizing and she sure knows how to treat the not for profit organizations! Prime real estate for a reasonable price!

The show was excellent. Friday was crazy busy. Saturday was steady and Sunday was less busy but overall the weekend was a huge success! Our presentation was standing room only for the first couple days. The topic was "Breed Profiling and Discrimination".

People were really receptive to us. We didn't have one person who agreed with the ban. Rui Branco was there to tell his story. Ines and Joseph were there too. What their family is going through is despicable!

Philip and Ginger were there too! Ginger is such a beautiful girlie. For being locked up for 3 1/2 years, she sure is a well adjusted dog! Philip needs our support for his upcoming court hearing next month. Toronto was granted an appeal which will be heard May 26, 2010.

It was an amazing weekend. We have a great team of people who are dedicated to stomping out breed profiling and discrimination in Ontario!

We won't stop until we get our rights back. Thanks to all who worked the booth and stopped by our booth! Your support is amazing.

Warm weather is here and lots more to come... please no grooming muzzles!

A light-weight basket muzzle is always the best option when the dog will be participating in a physical exercise such as walking or playing.  


It is also the best choice when the dog will or may be wearing the muzzle for longer than a few minutes.

Grooming muzzles should only be worn for grooming, nail trims or at the vets when dealing with an injured frightened dog.

When using a muzzle for walks and while participating in physical exercise it is important to use a muzzle that allows panting, drinking and some movement of the mouth. If a dog is wearing a grooming muzzle for walking, physical activity or in warm outdoor conditions the dog is at dire risk of overheating and suffering heat stroke. It is similar to when humans exert themselves and mouth breath; if you had an appliance keeping your mouth closed you would be forced to breath through your nose only.

Hyperthermia is a term describing an elevation in body temperature. This increase typically occurs as a response to a trigger, such as inflammation in the body or a hot environment. When a dog is exposed to high temperatures, heat stroke or heat exhaustion can result. Heat stroke is a very serious condition that requires immediate medical attention. Once the signs of heat stroke are detected, there is precious little time before serious damage - or even death - can occur.
Dogs do not sweat through their skin like humans - they release heat primarily by panting and they sweat through the foot pads and nose. If a dog cannot effectively expel heat, the internal body temperature begins to rise. Once the dog's temperature reaches 106°, damage to the body's cellular system and organs may become irreversible. Unfortunately, too many dogs succumb to heat stroke when it could have been avoided. Learn how to recognize the signs of heat stroke and prevent it from happening to your dog. 

Signs of Heat Stroke

The following signs may indicate heat stroke in a dog:
  • Increased rectal temperature (over 104° requires action, over 106° is a dire emergency)
  • Vigorous panting
  • Dark red gums
  • Tacky or dry mucus membranes (specifically the gums)
  • Lying down and unwilling (or unable) to get up
  • Collapse and/or loss of consciousness
  • Thick saliva
  • Dizziness or disorientation

What to do if You Suspect Heat Stroke

If you have even the slightest suspicion that your dog is suffering from heat stoke, you must take immediate action.
  1. First, move your dog out of the heat and away from the sun right away.
  2. Begin cooling your dog by placing cool, wet rags or washcloths on the body - especially the foot pads and around the head.
  3. DO NOT use ice or very cold water! Extreme cold can cause the blood vessels to constrict, preventing the body's core from cooling and actually causing the internal temperature to further rise. In addition, over-cooling can cause hypothermia, introducing a host of new problems. When the body temperature reaches 103°, stop cooling.
  4. Offer your dog cool water, but do not force water into your dog's mouth.
  5. Call or visit your vet right away - even if your dog seems better. Internal damage might not be obvious to the naked eye, so an exam is necessary (and further testing may be recommended).
Tip: recruit others to help you - ask someone to call the vet while others help you cool your dog.


Preventing Heat Stroke

There are ways you can prevent heat stroke from happening in the first place.
  • NEVER leave your dog alone in the car on a warm day, regardless of whether the windows are open. Even if the weather outside is not extremely hot, the inside of the car acts like an oven - temperatures can rise to dangerously high levels in a matter of minutes.
  • Avoid vigorous exercise on warm days. When outside, opt for shady areas.
  • Keep fresh cool water available at all times.
  • Certain types of dogs are more sensitive to heat - especially obese dogs and brachycephalic (short-nosed) breeds, like Pugs and Bulldogs. Use extreme caution when these dogs are exposed to heat.

Some dogs can recover fully from heat stroke if it is caught early enough. Others suffer permanent organ damage and require lifelong treatment. Sadly, many dogs do not survive heat stroke. Prevention is the key to keeping your dog safe.


Where can you buy a great, fashionable yet comfortable muzzle for your dog?

Amendments to DOLA August 29, 2005 requires all American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and “pitbull” type dogs (short haired mutts that are substantially similar therefore any non-purebred registered dog) to be leashed and muzzled in Ontario. Please comply with the law to keep your dog/s safe.


Hot Dogs All Dressed

Available at:

Bark and Fitz Toronto

All Creatures Great and Small Peterborough and Cobourg

Small Wonders Pet Emporium Inc. 148 Danforth Ave, Toronto M4K 1N1

Menagerie Pet Shop Toronto

Pet Grocer Alliston, Ontario