The Attorney General, Michael Bryant, has ignored requests for consultation from Humane Societies, the SPCA, the Ontario Veternary Medical Association,CKC and other experts.
He ignores recommendations put forth some time ago by an inquest into the death of a little girl by a neighbors dog(not a pit bull).
The girl's mother herself is speaking out against the BSL.
The ignorance and arrogance of this AG is simply astounding. He just came into office recently and riding a surge of media hysteria and apparently egged on by one of his local constituents with a vendetta against 'pit bulls', he saw a chance to make a name for himself. (CNN is apparently interviewing him tomorrow morning)
He continually refers to 'pit bulls' as ticking timebombs. When the paperboy incident I described above took place he quickly spoke to the cameras using it to defend his legislation, saying this incident would not have happened under his proposed law.
He rationalizes his intrusion into the rights of law-abiding citizens with logic such as this, which you Americans should bristle against.....
"If this is an inherently dangerous dog, as I believe it to be, then you can't leave it to the dog owner to every single time put the muzzle on it," Mr. Bryant told reporters on Tuesday."Just like you can't leave it to the gun owner to always put the safety clip on a weapon before it goes out in public."
When show a sheet of photos of various dog breeds he was unable to identify the American Pitbull Terrier.
The reporter, bless her heart, challenged the effectiveness of a law banning a specific breed when he himself could not identify the breed.
He countered that he would leave that up to the experts.
She sprung the trap, "But it is those very experts who have said that you refuse to consult them"
He sputtered.
Here is the 'definition' of a pit bull in the proposed law....
“pit bull” includes,
(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a member of a class of dogs that have an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to dogs referred to in any of clauses(a) to (d); (“pit-bull”)
(a) is not even a breed.
(e) is so vague with no description given of either appearance or physical characteristics as to be useless, or more frightenly, misused.
The law is wrong in so many ways but to look at it, as an example, from the perspective of my dog's breed, the Amstaff, which is included in the proposed ban.
In all of Canada there were registered with the CKC,
in 2002, five litters totalling 35 pups,
in 2003, three litters totalling 24 pups
and so far this year two litters totalling 16 pups.
The likelihood of banning Amstaffs having any effect whatsoever on the number of dog bites is extremely remote.
Here's more selections from the proposed law...
1) A proceeding may be commenced in the OntarioCourt of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that,...
(c) the owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from,...
(ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals.
behaving in a manner that poses a menace ??? barking?? straining on the lease to go investigate the neighbors free roaming cat??
Innocent until proven guilty, nope...
"If it is alleged in any court proceeding under this Act that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog."
Warrants? We don't need no stinkin warrants....
if "...circumstances in which the peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that entry into any building, receptacle or place, including a dwelling house, is necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm or death to any person or domestic animal."
But gosh, if all pit bulls are 'ticking timebombs', then there is no time to waste getting a warrant, get in there and save the children.
You can bet, if it can be abused, it will be.
The law is said to contain a mechanism whereby new breeds can be added to the ban without going back to the legislature. In Italy a similiar mechanism resulted in 92 breeds being banned.
We can beat this ill-conceived legislation and help enact measures that will truly address the problem of dog bites, but it going to take a lot of work and lots of money (we put out $20,000 to retain a prominent Ontario lawyer and that's just for starters).
We fully intend if needs be to take this all the way to our Supreme Court.
We are up to 12,000 signatures on our petition with many more sign up sheets still out there to be counted. We're shooting for 100,000.
We have received support from throughout the U.S. and it is greatly appreciated.
In the words of Ben Franklin, "We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Here's some links with more info...
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/
http://www.bannedaid.com/
http://www.killbill132.com/
"In the words of Ben Franklin, "We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately.""
I agree. Fortunately it has not gotten quite as bad in America yet, but if it could happen in Canada it could eventually happen here if we don't stop it. Thank you for the links. I would sign the petition, but I guess I don't carry much weight since I am American.LOL Maybe I send a donation to the legal fund. You are doing noble works for great dogs. If it passes you can always move to the U.S.A. Just don't move to Prince George's County, MD because they have banned the breed and several others. Most of the U.S. is friendly toward the Pit bull. Good luck with your efforts.