|
|
Sunday, June 29
FROM THE LAND OF THE FREE
by
Selma
on Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:32 AM EDT
From the comments on one of my Ohio posts:
We have posted a couple of responses to these letters at our blog:
http://pitbullrescuecentral.blogspot.com/
Please feel free to circulate. We need to stop the flow of misinformation.
Also from the comments at the same post:
Check our response to Councilwoman Thompson's raving lunacies at helpfido.blogspot.com.
Please feel free to cross post. And please add us as a favorite!
Thanks- your friends at HELP FIDO.
Sorry for the delay in getting those posted, I really have been busy with something important and large this week. I've added the PBRC blog and the Help Fido blog to my roll under Man's Only Friend.
Note to PBRC and other 'pit bull' rescues/support groups: Some of your content was taken out of context, no doubt. However, we have to be careful about what we put out there always keeping in mind that both the good and the evil among us can access and use the information to suit their purposes.
Case in point: The statements around aggression in dogs are unsubstantiated by any scientific authorities to date. There is no evidence that any breed, or in the case of most 'pit bulls', mixed breed, of dog is born with a tendency toward same-species aggression. Also, according to the experts, there is no difference between aggression towards other animals and aggression towards humans - it's just a matter of unchecked escalation. The most obvious explanation for this is of course that People Are Animals Too(c).
Is there same sex aggression among dogs? Absolutely. Is there a greater tendency towards aggression when owner expectation or behaviour reinforces it? Indubitably. Is there any genetic basis for most of the popular statements about dog aggression and how it arises? None, barring disease or disorder, ie, while it would be possible to breed a line of dogs exhibiting a psychopathology, it would be difficult and ultimately pointless.
All dogs tend to be naturally unafraid of humans, or friendly towards humans, which is the same thing. It's the nature of the beast and it explains why they've been with us for many millennia - around 50,000 years according to the latest information.
Other generalizations which are common among supporters of 'pit bulls' (and other types), for example that 'pit bulls' love people and were selected for this quality, are great with kids, etc can be just as harmful. No matter what the generalization, by differentiating 'pit bulls' or any other kinds of dogs based on tendencies or behaviour for which there is no evidence other than the anecdotal kind, you are isolating the dogs, making them different and attributing qualities to them that are not supported by the research to date. You don't take any dog out of the box, wind him up and get the finished product whether he's a Chihuahua or an Irish Wolfhound.
That's what the bad guys do, generalize and make statements founded on minimal anecdotal evidence - it's just the other side of the coin. So yes, they will cherry-pick from your information and use it to their advantage. Be careful what you put out there and be able to back up your statements with references if need be.
This issue is a matter of concern. While we fight tooth and claw through the courts and elsewhere at great financial and personal cost to prove that so-called 'pit bulls' (which don't technically exist) are the same as other dogs, some of the groups which are onside with our cause are providing the enemy with ammunition - even though they have the best of intentions.
****
There was a fatality in Florida this week. Since I doubt that the story will get the typically wide play that a death reportedly caused by another shape of dog would merit, I'll do my part to get it out there.
Brent posted the news and his take is, as always, a good one.
Luisa has a good post about the story which focuses on some of the comments by readers of the news item in Florida. Her piece points out how an already ignorant public has been propagandized (and thereby rendered more ignorant) into believing all the nonsense about 'breeds' of dogs by a lazy, pandering media and self-serving government drones.
No need to gild the lily, they've got it covered.
****
As always, if you want to keep tabs on what the trogs are plotting, No Pit Bull Bans is a great source for upcoming anti-dog owner legislation. I check in there regularly.
Later (I hope).
Saturday, June 28
A FEW THINGS
by
Selma
on Sat 28 Jun 2008 11:58 AM EDT
I just found out about a great site, Pet Defense. Thanks to S. Kennedy for the link.
http://petdefense.wordpress.com/
Be sure to read the entries on AB 1634, California's horrendous enlistment into the AR extinction plan. It's been the talk of the 'sphere this week, since the original piece of garbage was rewritten - but not for the better. We'll have to keep tabs on this one - California is easy meat for militant animal rightists and other fad-carrying propagandists - it's all about stroking the egos of the manipulees. My links go to the Pet Connection and the marvellous Lassie Get Help.
Brent over at KC Dog Blog has an interesting post regarding Kansas City's failed mandatory sterilization law. Despite the numbers, the City is trumpeting the success of the program and appears to have also brainwashed local media - who have access to the same figures that KC has.
This reminds me of a passage in a book I'm reading. The thesis of the book is that emotion plays a major role in decision-making, overriding logic and facts, which is why arguing dispassionately and rationally aren't working for us:
"What [Lyndon] Johnson and [Dr Martin Luther] King both intuitively understood is what colleagues and I demonstrated with brain imaging forty years later: that arguing about the rationality of rationalizations is attacking the wrong target. Rationalizations are the post hoc smoke that billows from emotional fires. In our study, only after partisans had come to emotionally biased judgements did we see any activation in circuits usually associated with reasoning, suggesting that they had begun to develop rationalizations for their emotional biases. You can systematically debate the fine points of these realizations, but you're wasting your time.
You don't put out a fire by waving at the smoke. You put out the fires. And if someone keeps starting those fires, you put out the arsonist."
--Drew Westen, The Political Brain, p. 351
Words to live by.
More later, have to get on with my big project.
Sunday, June 15
OHIO BAN FANS USE MEDIA TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA
by
Selma
on Sun 15 Jun 2008 11:19 AM EDT
KC Dog Blog has a good 'un this morning.
It's all about the Councillors in Ohio towns and the depths to which they are sinking in order to spread their tainted message. It's kind of funny that they are writing letters to the editor, since local media have already proven themselves to be onside.
Two Ohio lawmakers are using the letters to the editors in their local newspapers to sell their ideas on banning 'pit bull' dogs in their cities...and when you dive into the logic, it's a bit scary.
KC, my man, you're a master of understatement.
It's downright frightening.
SOME NOTES FROM WOOFSTOCK
by
Selma
on Sun 15 Jun 2008 10:17 AM EDT
I didn't notice until Lori pointed it out that there were many intact dogs at Woofstock.
It's unlikely that the owners are all into neuticles, based on the general level of knowledge displayed by the majority of visitors.
It stands to reason that if there are a lot of intact dogs, then there are likely a lot of intact bitches. Welcome to Kijiji World.
Only a small minority of dog owners visit Woofstock, so it's not possible to generalize across the population but it was interesting to note.
There were many odd-looking little dogs - snipey, frail and roach-backed with dull, sparse haircoats of indeterminate colour.
I guess these are the 'designer dogs' which are popular with the dedicated followers of fashion in the 21st century pet ownership community.
They are a sorry-looking lot indeed. My two Toy dogs are robust, lively and healthy-looking - confident, even, albeit aloof with strangers, as they should be.
Of even greater interest was the preponderance of mastiff types. In 2006, we saw two Cane Corsos, one owned by a friend who droppped down to visit our booth. This year, there were about two dozen of them, along with a good complement of Bullmastiffs, Rottweilers and Dobermans - many of them pups. We saw Presas, Neapolitans, English Mastiffs, Dogues de Bordeaux. One guy had a Tibetan Mastiff who wasn't too happy with the heat. There were quite a few backyard-bred Bernese Mountain dogs - sure, buy a pet shop Bernese and let us know how that works out for you. Lots and lots of Danes.
There was still a good turnout of DOLA dogs, some muzzled, some not but it was quite startling to see how many people had the big guys this year - and how many were totally unsuited as owners of those types. There were small people being dragged along by dogs bigger than they were, nervous people transmitting anxiety to their dogs, people using prong collars incorrectly (can we get rid of those things except at training schools?) thereby tormenting their dogs - you name it, we saw it.
Two mindless bimbos stood in front of our booth - one had a supposed 'pit bull' and the other had some kind of mastiff cross that was probably a Presa mix. The latter kept referring to her 'pit bull'. Right. They were snickering a lot and acting strange.
Anyway, when they arrived, the big, adolescent intact male was wearing a muzzle. Every time the handler (I had the feeling he wasn't her dog) took it off he lunged at other dogs. She had the prong collar on incorrectly which wasn't helping but the dog trainer in the booth next to us showed her how to use it properly.
We wondered if it was some kind of setup - by AR, the AG or media, since they loitered in front of our booth for quite awhile and kept talking about 'pit bulls' and deliberately letting the big mutt lunge at other dogs.
You meet all kinds of weirdos at Woofstock, I tell you what.
I guess when people can't get cute, easy to own, longstanding companion dogs such as American Pit Bull terriers, Staffordshire Bull terriers and American Staffordshire terriers, they turn to larger, more imposing dogs to keep up with the coneheads in their neighbourhoods.
There are people who own dogs and there are dog people - and never the twain shall meet. There's nothing wrong with mastiff breeds, I love them, it's just that they require more experienced owners due to their size and the cost of maintaining them.
As I said in one of my initial letters to Ontario's Attorney General, long before the first draft of the infernal dog ownership ban was made available, when you see what people will turn to if you bring in this misguided legislation, 'pit bulls' will be the good old days.
Man, it's hard to be right when you'd much rather be wrong.
Saturday, June 14
OHIO: COMING OFF THE KOOL-AID?
by
Selma
on Sat 14 Jun 2008 10:14 AM EDT
If so, it's way past time for that.
Whitehall, Ohio looked at a 'pit bull' ban and rejected the idea. The Councillor behind the scheme was Jacquelyn Thompson, an individual who seems to have some issues and I'm not talking about 'pit bulls'.
Some of her wild and crazy statements are redolent of Nelson, Bryant and of course, the animal haters at Peta. Here's a sample from the story at KC Dog Blog:
"Meanwhile, the woman who proposed the ban, Jacquelyn Thompson, seems like quite a trip and has seemed to have lost her grip on reality a bit as she ranted about pit bulls as the "new order" of evil in society and "tools of terror'. "
Fortunately, Ms Thompson, a new Councillor, has been left out in the cold as the proposal was rejected by saner heads at a recent meeting.
"That's the way I wrote it, the way I intended it, and the way I'm leaving it," [Councillor] Bailey said.
Ohio Revised Code stipulates all pit bulls are vicious dogs. The words "pit bull" appear nowhere in Bailey's breed-neutral ordinance, but rather refers to Ohio law. Bailey maintains his reference in the local law to the state law effectively addresses pit bulls.
However, Thompson and LaCorte said they think otherwise.
"You made sure the words 'pit bull' were not in here. ,,, I do not think it would be a bad thing to say 'pit bull,' " LaCorte said.
Thompson said inclusion of the words would "spell it out" for all the city's residents.
Thompson's failed measure grandfathered only one pit bull per household and prevented any new pit bulls, or other vicious dogs, from entering the city. Bailey's ordinance does not address the number of dogs, rather it simply allows the existing law -- of no more than three dogs of any breed per property -- to prevail.
<snip>
I'm liking Mr Bailey very much:
"Bailey said the goal of his ordinance is to educate people about the proper treatment of animals as much as it is to protect the public.
"This ordinance is a tool, not a weapon," Bailey said."
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Thompson - or maybe that's the problem. The full report is available here.
In other news, the Ohio statewide ban proposed by Tyrone Yates, which is now being pulled, engendered some interesting discussion.
One thing that mystifies me is why they ask dog wardens their opinion about particular shapes of dogs. To say they usually see dogs in unusual circumstances is a bit of an understatement, so their view will be skewed, much like the outlook of those involved in rescue, who think there is an epidemic of abuse, neglect and pet overpopulation.
I call it Snapshot Vision.
Here's a sample of what I mean, although this dog warden seems to have a head on her shoulders, unlike some others in Ohio I could name - if I wanted to give them vanity search satisfaction:
Vinton County Dog Warden Sheila Brooks estimated that about 30 percent of the county's dogs are pit bulls or pit bull mixes.
While not fully aware of the bill's ramifications, Brooks attested to what she's found to be the prickly nature of some pit bulls or pit bull mixes.
"I'm not very trusting of them because you never know what's going to set them off," Brooks said. "Dog wardens everywhere have difficulties with these dogs."
But when questioned about the supposed viciousness of the dogs, Brooks wasn't ready to point at any one factor to explain their behavior. The issue of whether the dogs' alleged aggressiveness is a product of breeding or environment is one not easily settled, according to Brooks. "Any dog has the potential to be mean," the dog warden said.
"But, when they have the reputation behind them, you learn to be a lot more leary."
Well, yes, the reputation is the whole point, isn't it? It's leery by the way but I shouldn't quibble.
State Rep Evans, who is actually a personal friend of Yates's, had this to say:
"Perhaps following the AKC's advice, many calls were made to Rep. Clyde Evans' office. Evans, who represents Ohio's 87th District, of which Vinton County is a part, said pet owners shouldn't worry about the bill. "In my six years in the legislature, it's one of the most ridiculous bills that has been introduced," Evans said during a telephone interview Friday.
Evans, who counts Yates as a personal friend, said the Cincinnati area representative "Put a bill out there that's not going to go anywhere," adding that the matter will likely fizzle after a single hearing.
"They are not by their nature an aggressive dog," Evans said of pit bulls. "They have been taught to fight."
Overall, the report is pretty good - here's a link.
I've heard there's a good group of people in Ohio who recently got together and are ready to kick ass and take names. They have credentials, knowledge, connections and the will to win.
We'll be watching and cheering them on from up here in Ontaristan.
Tuesday, June 10
EVERYBODY SING
by
Selma
on Tue 10 Jun 2008 10:13 AM EDT
WOOFSTOCK: "TWO DAYS OF HEARTBREAK"
by
Selma
on Tue 10 Jun 2008 02:11 AM EDT
Update: My buddy Soche has a good take on the event.
--------------
So, we did it. And it really is Two Days of Heartbreak which is Lori's very apt description.
We raised some money. I guess about 100,000 people pass through.
The Scuttlebutt, which is just hearsay:
Somebody stopped by to let us know that Guelph is discussing adding German Shepherd Dogs to their list of banned breeds. Needless to say, I was thrilled because it might help us to raise money, awareness and support.
Somebody else said that THS is adopting out known biters who are being returned and re-adopted, sometimes repeatedly. Worse, they are being sent to other jurisdictions. This was from a longtime (former) volunteer who isn't too happy about their MO.
As I say, hearsay, so don't flame me. Try a blue-flamer instead if you are determined to stage an incendiary sound-and-light show but don't wear polyester the way Harry did while playing to the gallery on his way down the College subway steps in 1967. Heh.
Woofstock is a dog-unfriendly event. There are no trees. There is no grass (grass - singular or plural?) The festival is supposed to be for dogs but not much thought seems to go into the design or the setting of the event.
I plan to advise them (since my friends the dogs are concernd) that they should a) move it to a park setting and b) hold it in the Fall.
We're not sure if the Bulldog from Saturday made it. On Sunday, another Bulldog was in dire straits and we thought the poor ol' Kijijji special was going to peg out right in front of us. He was a white dog and he couldn't walk anymore and his skin was bright pink under the hair. Luckily our member Steph who is an RVT was able to counsel the owner about cooling, etc. In other words, she read the Riot Act to the twit who was dragging the poor dog around despite his obvious distress.
I'm told the vet tent was busy all weekend, lots of heat stroke due to our tropical weather conditions. It is not widely known that our summers are positively brutal. We sometimes get hot, humid air with no rain for weeks. Some people go to Papua New Guinea for relief.
We met some good people who sought us out and stopped by our booth. Some of them can help us to get some facts out there and let's face it, we need all the help we can get.
It was somewhat funny when one of the Attorney General's staff lawyers who is junior counsel on our case appeared. He was immediately outed and I mentioned that unfortunately the My Ontario Includes 'Pit Bulls' button that he had purchased from me at the booth in 2006 was no longer available. You should have seen his face. Or not.
When he bought that button two years ago, I was imagining them all sitting around the conference table, shades drawn, calls held, door locked, observing it and listening for ticking sounds.
We all introduced ourselves to this young pup (who isn't even on the Sunshine List) so that if he was wearing a wire our names would be available - who's afraid of the big bad pusillanimous poltroon, eh? You're playing with the Irish now, my man, and why do you think The Troubles have lasted more than 900 years?
Ban this.
So that's it for now. My dogs are stressed out too because I obviously didn't take them with me into 90+ temps with high humidity and multos de troggos. I made the mistake of boarding them at my new vet clinic and they did not have a good time - I can tell. So, I guess it's all the way up to Brucie's from now on. They like it there.
Two days of heartbreak squared, eh?
More later - pictures at eleven.
Wednesday, June 4
'I BECAME DINNER'
by
Selma
on Wed 04 Jun 2008 07:52 PM EDT
I'm a little late posting this story from British Columbia, where the typical machinations leading to a 'breed' ban have started in the wake of a bite a few weeks ago by an alleged 'pit bull'.
It sounds as though this guy was being eatern from the ground up, to borrow a colourful phrase from our wacky former Attorney General. The victim likens the appearance of his leg to a 'pork chop'.
I'm sure the local citizens will be standing on the lawn of the legislature with torches and pitchforks, flooding the local tabloids with letters full of 'facts', demanding the extermination of the 'breed' and trolling their tushies off on the intertube comment boards.
'I became dinner,' says B.C. dog-attack victim
Christopher Sun , Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, May 28
BURNABY - The search is on for the owners of two dogs that attacked a man, biting his leg to the bone.
David Scoular also broke a couple of his ribs, twisted his knee and hurt his neck from hopping a one-metre fence in an attempt to flee from the attacking dogs near Burnaby Lake on May 18.
"It looks like a pork chop that opened up," Scoular said, explaining how his leg looked after the attack. "The (Labrador retriever) bit right to the bone and ripped it."
It took three paragraphs to discover the 'breed' of the attacking dog, which is definite progress. That information is usually buried unless it's a mutt who can be labeled a 'pit bull', no matter how bizarre that designation may be. In those cases, the shape appears in the headline.
So, how about it, British Columbians? Are you ready to ban Labrador retrievers? We'd like a change of pace over here at Banned Aid, things are much too predictable lately.
Surprise us.
OHIO BILL PULLED
by
Selma
on Wed 04 Jun 2008 12:50 AM EDT
Tyrone Yates has had second thoughts about his proposed statewide ban - the search-and-destroy variety - on 'pit bulls'.
He's decided that perhaps it wasn't too logical and might have been a bit Draconian.
He's right.
Giving credit where due, at least Yates had the guts to admit he'd made a mistake and is trying to put things right for the people of Ohio. For that, he'll get respect, unlike some politicians I could name.
KC Dog Blog has the details.
Note: Posting has been super-light lately for various reasons.
I'll be working the DLCC booth at Woofstock this weekend in Toronto. Drop down and say 'Hi' if you're in the area (Front Street between Church and Jarvis). We'll have t-shirts for sale, some designed by me. All proceeds to the Ontario legal fund.
Support BannedAid
Wednesday, May 21
NOVA SCOTIA: OWNERS FEAR BREED BANS
by
Selma
on Wed 21 May 2008 11:30 AM EDT
Minor amendment causes major kerfuffle more »
Monday, May 5
HEY SOCHE! HOPE YOU TOOK YOUR ANTI-NAUSEA SYRUP
by
Selma
on Mon 05 May 2008 08:04 PM EDT
Extra strength, that is... more »
Thursday, April 3
SO, HOW ABOUT THEM 'PIT BULLS', EH?
by
Selma
on Thu 03 Apr 2008 05:33 PM EDT
What kind of dogs ARE those little guys, anyway? more »
Saturday, March 29
FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 101 IS DEAD
by
Selma
on Sat 29 Mar 2008 12:53 AM EDT
Good news.
I just found out from the BadRap Blog that Florida's HB101 is dead.
The ill-conceived Bill had planned to revoke Florida's statewide prohibition against banning dogs because of their physical appearance.
It hasn't hit the mainstream media yet, so that's all I know at this point.
Friday, March 21
BSL/MSN: A TALE OF TWO CITIES
by
Selma
on Fri 21 Mar 2008 07:00 PM EDT
KC has a great series this week about mandatory spay/neuter and its effectiveness in terms of bite reduction and numbers of dogs killed.
He investigated San Francisco, California and Kansas City, Missouri (KCMO).
It's excellent, lots of good information available. There's a link to an interesting study which I haven't had a chance to read yet but plan to get to ASAP.
Here's a link: http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/
(Since it's a blog the entries appear in reverse order. Scroll down to find Part 1.)
Monday, March 17
SOME DATA FROM CALGARY
by
Selma
on Mon 17 Mar 2008 12:00 PM EDT
Calgary, the city with nothing to hide, has some statistics on its website. These are well worth viewing, especially as they have been done as graphs.
Of special interest is the chart that shows historical data on incidents of dog aggression because it proves that what Calgary is doing works and what other places are doing doesn't.*
I'm impressed by their owner returns as shown on the Impoundment chart as well - proving that Calgary's proactive approach to licensing is win-win-win - for dogs, owners and the City itself.
A colleague has written to Toronto Animal Services requesting similar data - whether it's forthcoming or not remains to be seen. It would be nice to do a comparison with the City of Toronto proper, which has roughly the same population as Calgary, about a million or so.
I still don't understand why the Liberal-stacked Committee refused to let Bill Bruce speak at the public hearings in 2005, but I suspect it's because they didn't want the outstanding success of his program to appear in Hansard and prove that all the 'pit bull' stuff was just theatre for the cheap seats.
*Update: I got this info today from Calgary: As a matter of interest, things are getting better. In 2006 we recorded 199 bite complaints, in 2007 that number dropped to 134 even though the city grew by about 25,000 people.
Saturday, March 15
MORE MISINFORMATION FOR THE MASSES
by
Selma
on Sat 15 Mar 2008 01:18 PM EDT
Media errors jeopardize dog owners' safety more »
Friday, March 14
WHY MEDIA ARE OUT OF THE LOOP
by
Selma
on Fri 14 Mar 2008 12:36 PM EDT
Unaware of two provisions in Ontario's law that are of no force and effect more »
Tuesday, March 11
A DOUBLE PLAY FOR TOLEDO!
by
Selma
on Tue 11 Mar 2008 12:03 PM EDT
Charging a mauling victim with failure to control a vicious dog more »
Sunday, March 9
UNSAFE AT ANY AGE?
by
Selma
on Sun 09 Mar 2008 12:04 PM EDT
Guy Walking his 'Pit Bull'
That crazy Mac asks whether Dolton is trying to kill the people in other provinces, most notably Quรจbec.
I've wondered about that, too. If nonexistent, preternaturally endowed 'pit bulls' are unsafe at any age, then why is it OK to ship them to other provinces when charging people?
Let's say somebody thinks your dog is a 'pit bull' and they decide to charge you with a violation.
That's when the three charming options kick in:
1. The dog is put to death
2. The dog is shipped out of province
3. The dog is sent to a research facility for some what-if experiments
Why is it OK to export these so-called dangerous dogs. Are people in other provinces tougher, more balanced, more experienced, or what's the deal?
Mac's got some info about our old friend Mr Algar from Peterborough in her post. He is shipping some pups to another province to keep them out of the dog-killers' clutches.
Good on you, Brad.
Are you mad enough yet?
Help us win the case against Ontario. We're doing the work, all we need is money.
Donate to Banned Aid: http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/donate.html
Saturday, March 8
BSL AND CANINE AGGRESSION
by
Selma
on Sat 08 Mar 2008 01:39 PM EST
Here's an article from Australia which I thought might interest you. It discusses the flaws of BSL as a route to reducing canine aggression toward humans.
ABSTRACT
There is no evidence in the literature to support the notion that restricting particular breeds helps reduce dog attacks. Breed specific legislative measures reflect a simplistic and unrealistic appreciation of the causal factors involved. Real solutions are available but of necessity, they must involve a multidimensional approach involving dog owners, parents, children, the community at large, local authorities and legislators.
Breed specific legislation has been seen as a reasonable opening legislative gambit by some but only in as much as it signals a political intent to do something about trying to minimize dog aggression accidents and injuries. It is appropriate now that the goal should be to do something useful.
I've just skimmed it but plan to read it later on today.
In this month's Dogs in Canada is an article about canine aggression. There's mention of Dr Nick Branson, who is currently doing postdoctoral work with Dr Karen Overall at the University of Pennsylvania. Here are a couple of snips:
Dr Nick Branson, an Australian veterinarian now conducting research at the University of Pennsylvania on canine behaviour and genetics, is working to find a way to make a reliable determination of aggression propensities [sic] by specific breed or size.
To date, the results of Dr Branson's research are proving that when it comes to dog aggression, breed appears to be completely irrelevant.
I'll look forward to hearing more about the research being done at the Canine Behavioral Genetics lab and to reading any upcoming publications.
NO STATS? NO PROBLEM
by
Selma
on Sat 08 Mar 2008 10:47 AM EST
Somebody must have doped the water supply in Florida. Or maybe the natives have been out in the sun too long.
The unschooled have decided that shapes of dogs should be eliminated in order to prevent bites, attacks and maulings.
Why anyone believes that this goofy idea is sensible continues to mystify me.
Florida has a state-wide prohibition on banning 'breeds' of dogs, yet Miami-Dade has had a 'pit bull' ban in place for 20 years.
Get this: They have no idea whether or not it is working because they have no statistics available for analysis. They only started keeping track of dog incidents in 2005.
How can you bring in an oppressive, counterintuitive plan to kill dogs based on their looks without even having baseline information available? How can you decide to make people's (and dogs') lives miserable without having any facts on hand?
Of course, Peta supports the idea. Why is anybody soliciting their opinion or giving them print space? They are killers. They want all dogs dead. The media are so far behind the curve on this that it's a joke.
I guess H$U$ folk are mellowing their message because they now seem to be opposed to 'breed' bans. If that is their actual policy, I say it's about time, since they, too, get lots of press coverage. If they are now prepared to speak to fairness and common sense, I'll reverse my opinion of them but I'll wait to see how things unfold. They are still anti-No Kill and still promote mandatory sterilization - the kinder, gentler way to exterminate domestic dogs.
Anyway, here's the story in the Miami Herald.
*
In other news, a fundraiser to help homeless 'pit bulls' was canceled in Independence, MO (gotta laugh at the town's name) because of 'community sensitivity' about 'pit bulls'. No money for 'pit bulls' in that burg.
Memo to Missouri 'Pit Bull' Rescue: Change your name.
There's no such thing as a 'pit bull' and the trogs find that label scary.
All these 'pit bull' groups are not helping, by chattering on and on about 'pit bulls', running 'pit bull' specific courses, discussing the merits of 'pit bulls', posting pictures of 'pit bulls' on their websites and generally giving the enemy ammo to use against dog owners.
Also, next time you fundraise, you don't have to shout it from the rooftops - just say the money is going towards helping homeless dogs.
Duh.
More here.
Friday, February 29
RAMBO VS MISSISSAUGA
by
Selma
on Fri 29 Feb 2008 12:16 AM EST
I moved this up because Rambo's case is being heard today and you can get updates by following my links. more »
Thursday, February 28
TOGETHER, WE CAN WIN THIS
by
Selma
on Thu 28 Feb 2008 07:24 PM EST
February 2008
Dear Fellow Dog Owner,
"I was just looking at my dog, Jack.
He has a short coat, a short muzzle and a deep chest. He's about knee-high. I think he's a brown Labrador mix but who knows? I got him from a friend when he was just a pup. There was a case in Toronto just last week where a dog that looks like Jack is at the pound because animal control thinks he's a 'pit bull'. I am nervous when I take him for a walk these days, people stare at us and make comments.
I worry a lot, being a dog owner living in Ontario. Is my dog safe? Can I be sure? Well, not really because nobody seems to know which dogs fit the law and which dogs don't. And that's one of the big problems with Ontario's dog ownership ban. Every dog and no dog is a 'pit bull'."
--Ontario citizen, received via email
*
Breed banning is spreading across the continent. Mandatory sterilization and complex ownership rules complete the hat trick used to limit the breeding and ownership of dogs. Using outright lies and distortions, the anti-pet owner groups have been busy. Their aim is openly stated: they want to end the domestication of animals, including dogs.
In Europe there is mounting pressure to restrict breeding and pet ownership. Unfortunately, what starts there often comes here - as we saw with the infamous Dangerous Dogs Act.
California, Ontario, Ohio, Illinois, Louisville, Albuquerque - with each passing day another town or district is talking about or enacting a new law targeting dog owners and breeders.
*
The Dog Legislation Council of Canada (DLCC) in partnership with other Banned Aid Coalition members, has been one of the driving forces in the constitutional challenge to Ontario's confusing legislation.
We realize that our goal, while simple, may not be clear:
We are determined to fight for the rights of every dog owner across the country. We oppose breed bans, mandatory spay/neuter laws, elitist property requirements, limit laws and other anti-breeder, anti-owner legislation.
We know that even some dog owners have fallen prey to the media hysteria and political lies that allowed the passing of the Ontario law and others like it. We know that myths about pet overpopulation, uncaring profit-driven breeders, dangerous breeds and more are widely believed.
We are fighting the Ontario ban through the courts, not because of a breed or mixed breed but because the Ontario government has taken away the rights of people who have done no wrong - people like us.
Dog owners in Ontario, regardless of their pet's breed, are now subject to warrantless entry and unreasonable search and seizure. They can be charged if a dog is considered to be 'menacing' - with no definition of it in the law. They are open to mischief and harassment.
Owners of some dogs are now subject to the above plus restrictions on mobility, presumption of guilt, reversal of the burden of proof in a hearing, discrimination, intimidation and stigmatization. How long will it be until more breeds are added to the restricted or prohibited lists? As we have seen, the Ontario law already casts a very wide net indeed.
The precedent for the banning of purebred dogs and dogs that are 'substantially similar' in appearance has been set into provincial law and was upheld in a recent Superior Court decision. Three purebreds, two CKC-recognized, one recognized by other registries, are restricted and prohibited in Ontario. As a dog owner, that should alarm you as much as it alarms us.
We cannot allow governments to take rights away from people on a whim or to decide what type of dogs we should own. We cannot allow governments to prosecute citizens, not because of their actions but because of the physical appearance of their living, breathing pets.
The case is extremely expensive and we need your help. We cannot fund a constitutional challenge against an opponent with bottomless pockets (the Ontario government) alone.
To date, we have raised and spent over $525,000 on this legal action and our costs continue to mount as we prepare for the Appeal.
The Dog Legislation Council of Canada is an all-volunteer, all-breed, not-for-profit corporation with members in every province. All funds raised, including membership fees, are put directly into the legal fund.
We need your contribution now to carry on the fight for dog owners' rights. Please help us win the battle to protect dog ownership in Canada.
It's time for dog owners to stand together and speak with one voice.
It's time to say 'No!' to anti-dog owner legislation.
You can contribute in one of four ways:
1. Send a cheque or money order payable to Banned Aid to:
Attention: Cathy Prothro
National Secretary/Treasurer - Banned Aid Coalition
351 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth NS B2Y 3S4
2. & |
