Remember those words?  They sparked the American Revolution.

Why is it that politicans 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 wasn't going to comment on the 'pit bull' cloning because I feel that it's the lady's money and ultimately, her heartbreak.  In other words, it's really none of my business, like 95% of the gossip news today.

However, when the H$U$ weighs in crying crocodile tears for 'pit bulls', I can't ignore it.

"The pit bull is perhaps the most abused and persecuted dog breed [sic] in America and the money spent to clone this one pit bull could have been better used to help so many more" said Michael Markarian, Executive Vice President of the Humane Society.

I wonder how 'pit bulls' got into this mess?  That quote sounds kind of familiar.

I guess they're right though.  The money could have been used to help so many more to die.

Death for Vick's dogs urged
Humane Society chief recommends euthanizing seized pit bulls
New York Times News ServicePublished on: 08/01/07

SURRY, Va. — More than 60 dogs seized from Michael Vick's property have been sheltered here and in kennels across several counties in southeastern Virginia since April.

<snip>

"Officials from our oganization have examined some of these dogs and generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country," Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "Hundreds of thousands of less-violent pit bulls, who are better candidates to be rehabilitated, are being put down. The fate of these dogs will be up to the government, but we have recommended to them, and believe, they will be eventually put down."

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?