Random Access

I should have left well enough alone!

Oh well, at least I can admit when I`ve made a mistake,unlike some politicians.

[quote]The correct spelling is actually bated breath but it’s so common these days to see it written as baited breath that there’s every chance it will soon become the usual form, to the disgust of conservative speakers and the confusion of dictionary writers.[/quote]

[quote]with bated breath[/quote]

I can spell.

"baited breath"

Fibs are driving me craaaaazzzzy!

Well Caveat
It`s week #2 and I am still waiting for an official designation on "Up Yours Dalton".

I guess this little task has them stumped.

I even sent them the great little chart

http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/6/3508382.html

on your site to help them out.

But I see your Dachshund fits the "Pit Bull" profile and a couple of my cats seem to fit it, so I`m looking for other ways to help them.

Perhaps they`re not taking me seriously.

I`ll bet if someone with Press Credentials contacted them

http://southglengarry.com/council.htm

for an upadte on "UYD`s" designation,they might realize that I`m serious and that the world is waiting with bated breath for the decision on this one dog.

I`m just trying to get a better understanding of Premier McGuinty`s law.

Is that too much to ask?

I guess ignorance of the law is no excuse but I believe NOT UNDERSTANDING the law might qualify as an excuse.

Good point, Mac.

Since I live to nitpick, I'd like to also point out that for a dog to be fingered as a 'pit bull', it doesn't have to belong to one of the banned breeds.

It just has to be substantially similar, and that, my friends, is the rub.

Nobody knows what that means, least of all the ACOs who have been unfairly burdened with a wild goose chase because somebody couldn't get over themselves.

[quote]John Tory wrote to us to show his support![/quote]

Here`s his response re Bill 132 in case people haven`t
seen it on my blog.
Chris was my candidate who lost due to couch potatoes.

[quote] I appreciate receiving your e mail.

I have repeatedly stated that I believe the correct and sensible way to deal with the threat posed by dangerous dogs is to have in place legislative provisions which deal with all dangerous dogs of all kinds and with irresponsible owners, as opposed to breed specific legislation.

As we pointed out at the time of Mr. McGuinty's politically and showbusiness motivated legislation banning a single breed, even the definition of that breed was vague and invited ridicule by including dogs which looked like other dogs.

Dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners represent a serious matter which therefore requires a serious response, not the kind of publicity-motivated approach taken by Mr. McGuinty.

The law should speak to what the dogs and their owners do over who they are and thus we will get at the dogs and owners which pose the threat.

I appreciate this opportunity to be in touch with you.

Chris Savard has certainly made me aware of your concerns with respect to this issue.

He is an accomplished, diligent man who will speak up for the people he represents, as he has done in this case.

Best wishes.

John Tory[/quote]

I would like to correct something in the article below by Jim McDonald in the Mississauga News today.

http://www.mississauga.com/article/10959

[quote]Under Ontario law, the onus of proving a dog is not a pit bull lies with its owner if a veterinarian certificate identifies the canine as being part of the banned breed.[/quote]

NOTE:!!

Section 19 which includes the Veterinarian`s certificate as proof has been STRUCK DOWN in it`s entirety.

I would ask the Press to please verify their "facts".

We know the Attorney General wishes to mislead the public about the changes to the Bill,but we don`t need the Press helping him.

We`re wondering when he`s going to update his website to reflect the changes.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii29973/2007canlii29973.html

[quote]2. Document from a Veterinarian

[47] Section 19 provides that the Crown may introduce a document from a veterinarian as proof that a dog is a pit bull within the definition in the Act: S.19. (1) A document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario stating that a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act is receivable in evidence in a prosecution for an offence under this Act as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a pit bull for the purposes of this Act, without proof of the signature and without proof that the signatory is a member of the College.

(2) No action or other proceeding may be instituted against a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario for providing, in good faith, a document described in subsection (1).

(3) For greater certainty, this section does not remove the onus on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[48] While I found only s. 19(1) to be at variance with the Charter, the parties agree that ss. 19(2) and (3) make no sense in the absence of s. 19(1) and the entire section should therefore be struck down.[/quote]

Note""Pit Bull" terrier has also been struck down!

It would be interesting to post a list of those 24+ Pure Breeds.

That might wake up some people.

I believe the Jack Russell Terrier is one of them.

I know of at least one rescue that took in a couple of Ontario "Pit Bull" puppies and they grew up to look like Whippets.

Oops

Of course owners of other breeds can go to court and try to prove their dogs aren`t "Pit Bulls" or "SS" but that takes up court time.

More criminals get off due to delays in the Justice System.

We have to read more excuses from Chris Bentley.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/300442

We may have to watch him investigate himself.

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=888488

Isn`t that akin to the fox looking into the disappearance of the chickens.

It just never ends.

So put those doggies on a leash,go to your respective Municipalities and ask for a designation in writing BEFORE they knock on your door.

It`s not fair that only Mayor McCallion has a headache over this nonsense.

So far we only have ONE Municipal politician on side although
she hasn`t joined "Politicians against BSL and Bill 132" yet.

If you`re not on Facebook you can sign the guestbook

http://pub33.bravenet.com/guestbook/2827672708

to show the world that you support us.

Thank You in advance.

John Tory wrote to us to show his support!

Actually, it occurred to me today that even if a dog is a purebred and not one of the banned breeds, if it is 'substantially similar' in appearance - whatever that means, nobody's really sure - it can still be a restricted dog.

There is nothing in the law exempting lookalike purebreds. Only the BTCC got an exemption because Brytler (wrongly) believed that Don Cherry owned a Bull terrier at the time.

Shows you how crappy his research department was - Blue had been dead for awhile.

Of course, when you cut news clippings and call it 'research' you start off at a disadvantage if your intent is to make contact with the facts. Which it wasn't.

BTCC must have some kind of pull because nobody else who wrote to Bryant got any kind of response - even through the question form on his website.

So, folks, if you own any of the 24 breeds which the CKC says could be substantially similar to the 3 breeds (and 4 standards) which already
cover a lot of territory dogwise, you might be SOL if AC comes calling.

The net just got even wider. Welcome to Ontari-scari-ario.

Forgot to add this

[quote]Get a designation BEFORE you purchase your tag in Ontario.
You`re funding this stupidity.
Get something for your money.[/quote]

I`m not just talking about dogs that have the Ontario "Pit Bull" look.

Force the Gov`t(Municipal or Ontario) to do the paperwork on every single Ontario dog that isn`t a Pure Breed with registration papers.

I don`t care if your dog looks like a poodle or a Dachshund.
If it isn`t a registered Pure Breed,it`s grandmother might just be an Ontario "Pit Bull".

Let`s join them in their canine delusions.

The OVMA testimony at the Bill 132 committee hearings also supports the fact that identifying Rambo as a prohibited dog will be impossible.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/2005-01-24_M009.htm#P672_181318

This is what
Dr. Tim Zaharchuk, the current president(at that time) of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association had to say:

[quote]First, difficulties associated with breed identification will make a breed-based ban very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. There are MANY BREEDS and CROSSBREEDS that resemble the potential banned breeds, and municipal law enforcement officers do not generally have sufficient training to determine if a dog is in fact a banned breed. Even if they have that training, they will lack the scientific means for determining a dog's breed THAT CAN WITHSTAND THE RIGOURS OF A LEGAL CHALLENGE. I think Mr. Bryant has proved that conclusively.[/quote]

Only one person has requested the clip where Michael Bryant fails to identify a Pure bred APBT.
I hope that clip is shown at Rambo`s trial.
Here`s the test sheet that was shown to Bryant.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

It`s more humorous when you watch him cheat but this will give you an idea of the difficulty in identifying Pure Breeds,let alone mutts.

Bottom line-
Rambo could be anything.
I see Mastiff/Chesapeake Bay RetrieverX.

Who says he`s prohibited?

It looks like Ontario dog owners are going to be deciding the designation for themselves since my Township(and the Ontario Gov`t) have still not reached a decision on "Up Yours Dalton".

There will be one less dog licensed in Ontario if they don`t come up with something.

Get a designation BEFORE you purchase your tag in Ontario.
You`re funding this stupidity.
Get something for your money.

BTW the committee hearings are a long read but they`re well worth it.
You`ll see what an absolute fool Bryant was,when he stepped in front of the cameras immediately after they were over and said that he was more convinced than ever that Ontario needed this ban.

[quote]Your "new favourite Municipal councillor" is definitely NOT "buying into this nonsense of ground rules for killing dogs".[/quote]

Glad to hear.

Any chance of moving to South Glengarry?
I can`t get a councillor to lick a stamp and drop a letter in a mailbox to show his opposition to this Bill.

We`d be thrilled to have someone like you.

But you`re starting with the premise that Rambo is "SS".

I`m going with the premise that Rambo is NOT a prohibited dog.
He is not one of the 3 banned breeds or "The Powers that be" would be shouting that fact from the roof tops.

Is Rambo "SS"?
We need some rulings on that.

My Municipality can`t figure out if my dog "Up Yours Dalton" is "SS" or not.
They don`t even know if they even want to designate or should designate.
Have you seen her?
http://jmac53.bravejournal.com/entry/26504

[quote]Further, we have started the process to ensure NO live creatures can be sold in any Mississauga Flea Markets[/quote]

Speaking of Province wide bans,please pass on that suggestion.
Thumbs up.

Don`t get me wrong,I`m glad you`re speaking up but...

"Substantially similar" might mean..

4 paws,tail,teeth,common ancestor.

Every dog in Ontario may be "SS".
It has NOT been legally defined!

Try and make a deal Gabriella and get it in writing.

1)Death and research come off the table up front.

2)"SS" decision by a Judge

(I personally would appeal a lower court decision but that takes more money and Dalton and AG Chris Bentley might blame you for hogging court time and being the cause of real criminals(alleged corrupt cops) being put back out on the street.)

3)Then you comply with the Judge`s decision.
Dog comes home or leaves the Province.

The Crown makes deals with big time criminals all the time Gabriella.
Ask them about Karla Homolka and others.

A small time "criminal" like you should be able to cut a deal.

And Councillor
Any interest in joining these 2 groups?

"Canadian Politicians opposed to BSL and Bill 132"

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3410029275
and

"Hey Ontario Liberals,Listen Up"
We`re holding paws and waiting for an apology from Michael Bryant in this group.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2502641891

You`re still our "favorite councillor"

To Mac's Gang
Your "new favourite Municipal councillor" is definitely NOT "buying into this nonsense of ground rules for killing dogs".
The law is DEAD WRONG.
While Clayton Ruby fights this terrible law through the courts, we have to ensure those who are caught in the grips of it at least have the option of placing their puppies in safe, loving homes outside the province until such time as it's fixed (dropped).
Currently the residents of Mississauga do not have this option.
I am about to make sure that Option 2 - transfer to research facilities - is not one our animal workers will have at their disposal.
Further, we have started the process to ensure NO live creatures can be sold in any Mississauga Flea Markets where they are often subjected to improper handling as well as inadequate food, water or space.
Thank goodness such changes can be made quickly at the Municipal level!

To KILL dogs based NOT on their temperments or dispositions and ONLY on how they look is wrong. IT is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

The former (and recently demoted) A.G., Michael Bryant, in his rush for brownie points from a mostly misinformed and gullible public, has now made thousands and thousands of people and dogs miserable(including numerous muncipalities in Ontario) for his lack of vision, foresight and patience. Bryant has left quite allot "doggie messes" behind him for OTHERS to pick up.

[quote]One of the things that the Nowakowska crew will try to show is the inequitable application of the law across the province.[/quote]

Well now,as if there wasn`t already abundant proof...

[quote]Pair of pooches make escape from pit bull-phobic province[/quote]

Take a wild guess at which Province...

[quote]Last fall, Capone was surrendered to the humane society when his owner was incarcerated. Gracie was abandoned when she was thrown over a 2.1-metre fence into a pen behind the Fourth Avenue shelter. Without knowing whether they were born before a provincial ban on the breed took effect in 2005, the shelter's only option for the dogs was to ship them out of ? or destroy them. Pit bulls born after October 2005 can not be put up for adoption.[/quote]

[quote]The humane society has already shipped out dogs to Edmonton, Nova Scotia, New York and Pennsylvania to spare them a death sentence.[/quote]

Give up?

Tada

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=885713

I guess there is another option Mississauga unless they`re just being emotional.

[quote]Regardless of our feelings toward this legislation, staff are expected to do their duty as spelled out in the law. This process cannot be administered on an emotional basis regardless of how difficult this may seem."[/quote]

[quote]A private members bill to make the animal cruelty laws tougher in Ontario, died on the floor, because McGuinty decided he needed a vacation.[/quote]

That Bill has been re-introduced by Bob Runciman!

http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/12/12/3406156.html

CAVEAT

[quote]Over 80% of pet dogs are mixed breeds, according to CKC estimates.[/quote]

It would be interesting to hazard a guess at what percentage of the 80% would fit that vague description of Ontario "Pit Bull"

If you don`t own a Pure Bred dog with papers to prove it,you better take a real good look at your mix breed dog.
You may have to move it to a "Safe House" to save it`s life.

Iam well aware of what this province-this country does with its animals. It makes me sick when I think of the terror and suffering these beings are subjected to when they are shippied off for research.
I'am also well aware of the number of animals that have been put down because of BSL. Lets face it. this government..this country care nothing for the pain and suffering of animals.A private members bill to make the animal cruelty laws tougher in Ontario, died on the floor, because McGuinty decided he needed a vacation.

Actually, Dry Creek, you are referencing the 2005 presentation by Dr Gary Goeree of Kitchener, who was on the committee to determine which dogs fit their ban. His presentation is fascinating and available at my blog, left sidebar under 'Useful Links', The 'pit bull' ban in Hansard.

http://caveat.blogware.com

Go to related information, scroll down to the Committee presentations, select the one by the animal hospital of Kitchener-Waterloo - might be Jan 27.

The govt links are full of spacers, about 100 characters long or I'd put one here.

Kitchener did NOT ban the purebreds and asked the Ontario govt to follow suit since that had worked very well for them. The Fiberals didn't even listen to the city that pioneered breed banning in Ontario.

Number 8 on the list in Kitchener, behind 'poodles', were the generic mutts often identified as 'pit bulls'.

And of course, their dog bites did not decrease at all from pre-ban numbers.

There has never been a reported bite in Canada by the banned purebreds of which I am aware. If anyone has updated stats, I'd love to get them.

Furthermore, while many people believe that there are a few breeds that are responsible for the largest number of bites, attacks and fatal maulings AND that those are the breeds named in the provincial legislation, this is incorrect.

In fact, if the intent was to reduce dog bites (and it most definitely wasn't, as stated by the former AG and the lawyer defending the ban in court), the law would have headed in an entirely different and to most people very surprising direction.

And I'm not talking about the CHIRRP stats, because while biting is recorded, severity and outcome are not.

The Canada Safety Council lists the Labrador retriever as the lead biter in Canada - or so they say in media interviews.

Given the popularity of Labs, it only makes sense. Does this mean Labs are dangerous? Not at all. Popularity means the chances of getting inexperienced owners and even abusive and neglectful owners increases. I'm not referring to Labs, either.

Here's a fact that very few people who haven't researched this know:

In Ontario, an average of 9 American Staffordshire terriers were registered annually, pre-ban. The estimated population of living AmStaffs in Ontario is fewer than 50 according to the CKC.

There are around 300 - 500 Staffordshire Bulls, the little wee guys about the size of a Jack Russell or largish Boston terrier. There are 240 - 500 APBTs (just got an update the other day).

So, to be generous, there might even be 1500 dogs that are purebred and named in the law living in the province.

The estimated pop of dogs in Ontario is 2 - 3 million. Due to a complete abandonment of licensing enforcement across Ontario, we can only estimate the total number.

Over 80% of pet dogs are mixed breeds, according to CKC estimates.

Interestingly, according to the OVMA over 2,000 dogs perceived to be 'pit bulls' have been killed in Ontario because of their shape since the ban was enacted. None were purebred dogs although there is some evidence that one of them might have been.

So, the govt death squads have already killed more dogs than the total purebred population in Ontario.

Bites are up 73% in Peterborough, 57% in Owen Sound and so on and so forth. This happens whenever these foolish bans are implemented.

The most glaring flaw in this type of legislation is that it is based solely on a very vaguely described physical appearance rather than behaviour. It highlights a gross misunderstanding of what 'breed' really means. It is nothing but theatre for the gullible public.

Get it?

"The most common breeds were
German Shepherds(40)
Rottweilers(16)
Cocker Spaniels(16)
Golden Retrievers(15)"

I remember reading, on goodpooch I believe, that in Canada, the group of banned breeds and all SubSim dogs were approx 9th on the list, right after poodles!

McGuilty has a lot of blood on his hands due to this ridiculous legislation.

I think it's about time for those that passed this backwards ineffective law to assist in the slaughter of these innocents.

I doubt it would affect their cold uncaring hearts but it would give me some satisfaction.

This story has to be kept alive, as does Rambo, much as the provincial and municipal governments would like to see it disappear (and Rambo with it).

There is no other law which presumes criminality and restricts the freedom of citizens in the absence of any wrongdoing based solely on the physical appearance of universally legal, living property.

The Ontario Liberals' unfounded, unjust, vague and shoddy law that is being unevenly applied across the province, against all expert advice and experience, with dog owners the target of accusations apparently caused by spite, is a disgrace to democracy.

[quote]Gabriela's lawyer hopes to establish some ground rules for the process that municipalities should adhere to in applying Bill 132.[/quote]

Just noticed this!

Ground rules for what?

Killing innocent dogs equitably across the Province???

WTF?

Donate to www.bannedaid.com

We don`t need ground rules.
We need commonsense!

This law must be struck down in it`s entirety!

I hope my new favorite Municipal councillor isn`t buying into this nonsense of ground rules for killing dogs?

Ontario doesn`t have a bite registry and breed bans don`t work according to ALL the experts but based on CHIRPP...

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/chirpp/injrep-rapbles/dogbit_e.html

...Of the 385 dog bite victims in that study,278 identified the dog breed.
There were 50 types of Purebreds and 33 types of crossbreeds identified.

The most common breeds were
German Shepherds(40)
Rottweilers(16)
Cocker Spaniels(16)
Golden Retrievers(15)

Note:You won`t see the breeds mentioned now.
They were conveniently removed when The Gov`t passed Bill 132 but I have the breeds in an Info package put out by the OVMA.

If you believe in Breed Specific Legislation and you want ground rules-Start with this rule

Rule #1
Take the Staffordshire Bull Terrier,
the American Staffordshire Terrier and the APBT
off the Banned List
and put the top 4 biters ON the Banned List.

Rambo,I hope your Lawyer is not going to try and save your life by arguing for equitable slaughtering.

Here`s another Rambo Facebook
Group for you.
235 members in that one.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3161140157

That`s close to 1000 people.

Does that mean at least
($20 x 1000)
$20,000 is on it`s way to

www.bannedaid.com

so they can save all the puppies and dogs?

[quote]This dog is being put down because it looks like something else."[/quote]

Kerry,they have already slaughtered thousands.

Puppies that they think are "Pit Bulls"(Mix breed) are slaughtered or sent to Research Facilities!
They don`t wait for them to grow up.
A few are being shipped out of Ontario by Rescue Groups.

You just didn`t get to see their faces because most didn`t or don`t have owners yet!

All they have to do, to find those 3 Pure Breeds(which have never bitten or killed anyone BTW) is to scan them for their chip.

Reputable Breeders have stopped breeding them until the law is overturned.

They are killing mix breed dogs,just in case....

[quote]Every night I touch him and say 'I'm sending the angels to help you.'"[/quote]

Very nice sentiment but the Law Firm hired on behalf of ALL Canadian citizens(who value their Charter Rights) wants to be paid in cash.