Here's some proof of what we've been telling people all along:  that the types of dogs which bite, attack and kill in Canada differ from those featured in media-hyped, flawed US studies.

This abstract of a recent study should be of interest to those who are looking for ways to prevent dog bite-related fatalities and who realize that the breed, or more correctly shape of the dog(s) involved is the least important aspect of these tragic events. One problem with this paper is that it relied on media reports as a source for information.  I wonder if news media will run this story?

1: Can Vet J. 2008 Jun;49(6):577-81. Links

Fatal dog attacks in Canada, 1990-2007.

Raghavan M.

Office of the Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. raghavan@cc.umanitoba.ca

In Canada, public debates on dog attacks are dominated by studies from the United States. An electronic search of media reports in the Canadian Newsstand database, for the years 1990 to 2007, identified 28 fatalities from dog-bite injuries. Predominant factors in this case series were owned, known dogs; residential location; children's unsupervised access to area with dogs; and rural/remote areas, including aboriginal reserves in the prairies. A higher proportion of sled dogs and, possibly, mixed-breed dogs in Canada than in the United States caused fatalities, as did multiple dogs rather than single dogs. Free-roaming dog packs, reported only from rural communities, caused most on-reserve fatalities. Future studies are needed to assess if this rural/urban divide is observed in nonfatal attacks and if the breeds that bite in Canada are different from the breeds that killed. Breed representation in this paper and, perhaps, multiple-dog overrepresentation should be understood in the context of the overall Canadian dog population.

Remember those words?  They sparked the American Revolution.

Why is it that politicians these days ignore the majority of their constituents when formulating laws that affect those citizens directly?

Ontario's former Attorney General Michael Bryant liked to talk about all the correspondence he received while promoting his 'pit bull' owner scapegoating scheme - the much-ballyhooed 5,000 emails.

What he didn't tell people was that the overwhelming majority of those letters, faxes, phone calls and emails were undoubtedly opposed to his murderous plot.

He liked to talk about how he consulted with 'experts' prior to presenting the law for First Reading (which was, of course, already written and in the Box until an opportune time to unleash it on dog owners in the province presented itself).

The thing is, many of those experts don't remember that meeting.

He talked about the Committee hearings as if there had been support for the insanity there.

Funny, the testimony is available in Hansard and it clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of witnesses were opposed to the 'pit bull' ban.  So does the file of written presentations and research materials for Committee - there are no more than a handful of hen-scratched letters in support of the ban among all those papers. I looked for them.

Every expert person and organization opposed the plan.  Even the City of Kitchener, which has the dubious honour of pioneering breed banning in Ontario, opposed the idea of adding purebred dogs to the legislation and advised the government to put more thought into it.

The only people who supported it were a few individuals who had no experience with dogs, didn't understand what 'breed' means and in the majority of cases, just didn't think they liked the way 'pit bulls' looked or had a personal anecdote about an encounter with a purported 'pit bull'.  There were a couple of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and suffered serious injuries from dog attacks but that's hardly enough evidence to penalize every owner of a short-haired, boxy-muzzled mutt in Ontario.

Bryant used media reports to shore up his case, because there is no credible evidence to support something as irrational, un-Canadian and pointless as slating a shape of dog for extinction.  The whole thing is based on fiction.

Unless, of course, you are being influenced by, or are a fifth columnist for, the animal rights/liberation/protection movement which has the goal of rendering domestic animals extinct.

*

I've focused on the situation in California lately because what happens in California won't stay in California. 

The Dead Pets Act, AB1634, has undergone so many amendments, including last-minute amendments, that it is unrecognizable when compared with its first iteration.

Initially, it mandated the surgical sterilization of every dog and cat in California by the age of four months - with very few exceptions.  It allowed a local town clerk to decide whether or not someone could breed dogs and what kind of dogs they could breed.

Due to recent changes, it now reads like a badly-written municipal bylaw.  The nut of it is that if a dog owner is cited three times (cat owners twice) for what amounts to a bylaw infraction (running at large, unlicensed, nuisance barking), then their dog must undergo radical, invasive surgery as a penalty.

Who's driving this bus?

I'm told that so many people opposed AB1634 last year that the fax machines in government offices broke down.

Its author, Levine, no longer holds public office.

AB1634 lay dormant for a year but reared its deaths-head again this summer in what appears to be a desperate bid to pass something, anything, regardless of its utility.  Due to all the amendments, the way the Bill looked this past Friday wasn't the way it looked last Monday.

*

What's with these politicians who ignore their constituents?

They are elected to represent all citizens equally in a fair, objective manner.  It's called public service for a reason - it's not about them.

Some of these people act more like royalty - unaccountable, secretive, insufferably arrogant and entitled to their entitlements. 

They believe that they know what's best for people.

They believe they can tell citizens what kind of dogs they should own.

They believe they can tell citizens how to look after their pets.

They believe they can decide when, and whether, a pet should be subject to surgery.

They believe they can enact sweeping, harmful legislation such as Ontario's 'breed' ban or California's intrusive AB1634 in order to address the tiny minority who are either already criminals or are a nuisance that can be controlled with enforcement of existing legislation.

They misrepresent information.  They ignore facts.  They hold their hands over their ears and hum when experts try to educate them.

They are not representing the people who put them into office.  It appears they are representing well-financed lobbyists and campaign contributors whose slick sales tactics obscure the real agenda.  That's not the way it's supposed to work.

I'm getting pretty tired of taxation without representation.

How about you?

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The Government Does Not Belong

in the Dog Houses of the Nation

British Columbia Daily's Slip is Showng.

August 15:  On Wednesday, I scolded the second-string British Columbia print daily, The Province, for presenting misinformation to support their recent rabble-rousing campaign to ban dogs provincewide.  Government by media doesn't impress me and these days the tail is wagging the dog so hard we don't know whether he's coming or going.

We dog owners know that mass-market news outlets can be not only unreliable, but downright dishonest in their presentation of issues around dogs, dog breed/shapes and their owners.

As any self-respecting low-living, drug-dealing, heat-packing, dog-abusing gangsta would do, I contacted the city councillor named in the column to verify that he was indeed reopening Pandora's Box by pushing for a 'pit bull' ban in BC.

A friend in BC, who prefers to remain anonymous, was actively involved the last time this scheme was discussed in the greater Vancouver area.  She told me she'd posted a comment at the paper's site asking whether the statement was recent or had been dredged up from their files.  Interestingly, that comment was not displayed online.

Councillor Stevenson's message was framed this way in the Province editorial: 

"Vancouver Coun. Tim Stevenson, meanwhile, says it's time the B.C. government considered enacting provincewide legislation to ban pit-bull-type dogs, similar to that imposed three years ago in Ontario. (Owners there may keep pit bulls they already own, but must have them spayed or neutered, and leashed and muzzled at all times).

We agree with Stevenson: This is a serious enough issue that it shouldn't be left to every little B.C. municipality to come up with its own set of rules."

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but he says he didn't say that. 

This is the response I received from Stevenson (along with his permission to run it):

You will notice in the Province Editorial I was not quoted. That's because I have not, and I am not, advocating for a ban. I am advocating however for the Provincial Government find solutions to the issue of "dangerous dogs". Individual Municipalities cannot deal with the problem. We need Province wide regulations and laws. But thanks for verifying the Province story. Unfortunately most e-mails from pit bull owners haven't bothered checking but rather become very aggressive themselves in their e-mails to me. I don't pay any attention to that kind of correspondence. They seem to forget (unlike you), the press always has their own spin.

Sincerely,

Tim Stevenson, Councillor.

Oh, trust me, Councillor Stevenson, I never forget that the press has its own spin.  I just wonder who is wagging its tail.

*

Note to dog owners who vent their frustation before having all the facts:  You're not f$#%ing helping!

I wonder if David Zimmer* saw this article today:

Dog Bites Boy's Lip Off
Stan Maddux
For The News-Dispatch

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP - A 6-year-old Springfield Township boy might need plastic surgery after a dog bit his face, tearing his lip from his face.

"He came to the shed covered in blood and I was freaking out," said his mother, Diane Ott.

The family owns Stateline Blueberries along Indiana 39 near the Michigan state line. According to La Porte County Police, Gabriel and Margorzata Przybysz of Park Forest, Ill., had gone there with their children to pick blueberries and brought their pet Chihuahua. Most of the family members were out in the field while their son tied the dog on a leash to a picnic table, police said.

The boy told investigators he warned the victim, Owen Ott, not to pet the animal but he reached down to pet the dog and was bitten. Diane Ott said her son was actually on a bicycle.

The gasbaggery begins.

Here's the kind of poppycock you can expect in BC fairly soon, if things follow the usual pattern.  Remember, Bryant is one of your native sons, he's not from Ontario.  Maybe it's a genetic flaw that made him such a ticking time bomb. 

I was just tripping through the Hansard from 2004, reading some of the debates about the Ontario dog-killing plan.

Hon Mr Bryant: Mr Klees, on the other side, can't figure out why we're doing it, and I'm here to make the case for it. I guess the short answer is that these are dangerous dogs. They hurt people. They hurt kids. They hurt families. They hurt other pets. They're dangerous. They cause damage.

That's because Frank Klees is Spock-logical and also represents his constituents - two things that are beyond your ken, Mike.

Let's start locally. Let me take you through just the last couple of months in Ontario. This is a sampling of just media reports of pit bull attacks, so these aren't the many unreported pit bull attacks that have taken place. These are the pit bull attacks that have shown up in the media.

August 15: a man attacked by a pit bull in Thorold, Ontario. August 21: a woman's dog attacked in Toronto. This lady's dog was attacked and killed on that date. She came to a round table I held in the Legislature on this. August 28: a Toronto man attacked by two pit bulls. The police had to use over a dozen bullets to put the pit bulls down.

You forgot to mention that they smothered one dog with a mattress, according to reports.  Other important details about this strangely under-publicized story were left out but we expect no less from the tiny emperor sans des vetements.

August 30: I asked the people of Ontario what they thought about a pit bull ban. Over 5,000 e-mails later the answer was pretty clear.

Yes, the answer was clear but you defiantly forged ahead anyway.  There was a lot at stake  - your ratings in the polls and face-time on the six o'clock news, for starters.

There clearly are many, many unreported pit bull attacks that have not ended up in the media or before a humane society or otherwise....

So, there are clearly a lot of secret 'attacks' that require no medical attention (any dog bite requiring medical attention, even just cleaning, generates a public health record).  Maybe I'm a bit thick, but if they are unreported, how do you know there are any, let alone many?

There was no unanimity, but the vast majority of people who e-mailed me, in any event, certainly supported the ban.

So when can we see these emails?  We thought you'd be handing out copies in front of the legislature, or at the least, posting them on your website or getting your handmaidens in media to publicize them for you.  Other guys read the emails they receive aloud in the House but you never do and I doubt it's for reasons of etiquette or sensitivity.

That's two months of pit bulls in Ontario, and that is just the media reports; it doesn't include the unreported incidents.

Wow, just the media reports and not the unreported incidents.  Why doesn't it include the unreported incidents - woudn't including them bolster your case?

I guess they're right - you can't fight irrationality with facts and logic.

You guys out west had best be getting it together.  This is a replay of what happened to dog owners in Ontario, thanks to media clowns.

 

B.C. must look at pit-bull ban

The Province

Published: Wednesday, August 13, 2008

It's an issue that won't die. What do we do about dog owners who refuse to control their potentially vicious animals, letting them attack other dogs and even other humans? Like others, we are relieved that the police finally arrested a man wanted for a rash of pit-bull attacks in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island

I wonder why the issue won't die?  Oh, right, because the yapping curs at second-rate organs like The Province are keeping it on life-support.  It's funny how they keep pushing for a ban, talking about it every day, ramping it up, running polls, allowing every knuckle-dragger with access to a keyboard to comment ad nauseum and then babble about the 'ongoing controversy' around 'pit bulls'.

It would be hilarious if it weren't such a deadly game.

Then they move on to some low-rent concern trolling:

But we are concerned that despite the seizure of three adult pit-bull crosses and a puppy, the dog owner has been released without charges.

And as Province readers have pointed out, there is an irony here. The man, who was believed to have been living in a van with the dogs, is free to live in society. The dogs face a death sentence.

I just love it when media bloviators try to sound well informed and serious.  Here's where they display their in-depth knowledge of dogs, dog breeds, genetics and behaviour - their regular readers buy right into it:

That said, certain breeds of dog, including pit bulls, have been bred for a particular behaviour -- including fighting with other dogs. Undisciplined and unleashed, they can turn onto [sic] dangerous weapons.

Yeah, well, tune in, turn on, maaaaaan.  Maybe it's time to lay off that BC Bud Light.

And you yahoos at the Province should forget about promoting Ontario as a model for a dog holocaust.  The law has been gutted, remember?  We're not finished with it yet.  Stay tuned.

I guess calling Bill in Calgary and asking for his advice would take too much effort.  I mean, why would we want to hear from a guy whose program is so successful that he's invited to speak at conferences and before city councils across the continent?

It's way more fun to just make stuff up and get the peasants all in a lather over the hobgoblin du jour than to look for reality-based solutions, isn't it?

Is the Fourth Estate a watchdog for the people?  No.  It's more like the snake that swallows his own tail and calls it dinner.

Here's the rest and don't blame me, I only mock this stuff, I don't write it.

I almost forgot.  Shouldn't they be pushing for a retriever ban?

It sounds as though the people in Grand Island, Nebraska actually know something about the dog bite issue.

There's some good common sense going on down there.

GRAND ISLAND — While the Nebraska cities of Osceola and Minden have added dog breed bans to their city laws this summer, Grand Island will not pursue such a ban.

The Animal Advisory Board met on Monday and was adamant that a ban on any dog breed not become a part of the Grand Island city code.

City Attorney Dale Shotkoski had asked the board if it wanted to pursue a ban after his office received calls recently about pit bulls.

"Any type of dog can do severe damage," said Laurie Dethloff, Central Nebraska Humane Society executive director. "We prefer to make the owners accountable, not the breed."

It is so refreshing to read an article like this one and realize that there are people out there who understand the issue and are in a position to do something about it.

Refreshing but unfortunately much too rare.

Thanks, Grand Island.  You made my day.

It sounds as though all the recent attacks in BC were the fault of one weirdo who tripped around with a pack of nasty dogs described as 'pit bulls'.  What a bizarre story.

Man arrested for pit-bull attacks

Katie Mercer, The Province

Published: Monday, August 11, 2008

VANCOUVER -- A man wanted in connection with a rash of pit-bull attacks was arrested Monday morning by Vancouver police.

Hal Harris, the owner of the pack of five pit bulls, was arrested on a warrant from Nanaimo. The dogs have been seized and are being held at the Surrey SPCA.

"The dogs are in custody and will not be released in the public," said B.C. SPCA spokesperson, Lorie Chortyk. 

The former Sidney resident was wanted in relation to a number of attacks by pit bulls on Vancouver Island and in Surrey in the last 11 months, including one in North Saanich on July 7.

Don't let your guard down in BC, though.  The foaming mob has been incited by the newsies out there so you aren't out of the woods yet.

Here's the rest of the story.

There's another article in the Surrey Leader.  Check out the 'pit bull' pictured with it.

There's nothing that's more fun to read than a red hot rant that rips into the leaders of the Let's Kill All the Dogs Club with the pedal to the metal and a full tank of gas.

It's even better when it's right off the cuff with no fiddling over words or phrases.

Somebody is very miffed.

I admire that in a person.

Now, this is what I call a feel good story (except for the 'animal rights activists' part..they love guys like Skeldon...sigh...).

Local group petitions to fire dog warden

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 05:50 AM EDT

Report by Jonathon Walsh - email | bio

Posted by LS

LUCAS COUNTY (WTOL) - Pet owners are petitioning commissioners.

A group of animal rights activists is gathering signatures to get a number of things changed including firing Dog Warden Tom Skeldon.

The group is called 4 Lucas County Pets. Members are not happy with the warden's office.