I've been meaning to bring attention to a good article over at Smart Dogs' Weblog for a few days.

The recent scare about phthalates in plastic toys made us wonder about some of the popular brands of dog toys.

For example, my ball-crazy Rowan likes these from Planet Dog the best (size small, of course):

Since they are soft on the surface I wondered if they contained phthalates.

Smart Dogs did the legwork and wrote to various companies to get the answers.

These Planet Dog toys contain no phthalates, nor do the other most popular brands.

You can read about it here

"Little Billy" a famous Bulldog, 1853

Do you want to have some fun?

Lassie found something good.  Go sniff around!

John Yates of the American Sporting Dog Alliance is doing the research and staying on top of the ongoing threats to dog ownership across North America.

If you live in Maine, you should read this article - it sounds as though one of those backroom committees is about to recommend some sweeping changes to state legislation - starting with warrantless entry onto private property.

People in Ohio had best get busy or kiss their rights goodbye.  The Senate will likely vote on an abominable piece of legislation this Tuesday, December 16.

Don't sit this out, people.  Send a fax, make a phone call or at least send an email (least effective) - if you live in the affected state.  Outsiders can send a note to the Governor (as I did over AB1634) and it will be read and answered.  In fact, while I still await several replies from Ontario's former Attorney General Michael J Bryant (Lib - St Paul's), California's Gubernator had the courtesy to reply in a timely manner.  Go figure.

Remember how AB1634 was defeated in California - by grassroots action on the part of dog lovers across the state.

It worked and it will continue to work but only if people do it.

Make your voices heard on these and other important issues that affect your future as dog lovers and owners. 

Otherwise, we may as well all just go home.

Well, it looks as though the drugs are wearing off in the UK - at long last.

In the news today:

Bid to overhaul dog laws launched

 

 

Steps are being taken to tighten up the law surrounding dangerous dogs.

A Bill is being tabled in the House of Lords that would make attacks on private property an offence and outlaw breeding or keeping dogs for fighting.

Dangerous dogs have been controlled by legislation since the 1870s but the latest act rushed through in 1991 after a spate of attacks has never been popular and campaigners have long been calling for change.

I hope this Bill passes because as we all know, any laws which are directed at dogs rather than owners are destined to fail.  The UK's infamous DDA, passed in 1991, is the gold standard for those researching the failure of breed-specific legislation.

It is such an awful law that universities in England use it as an example of poorly drafted legislation.

Not only has it cost a fortune, dog bites in most cities and towns in the UK have increased dramatically since enactment.

This bit is hopefully just bad interpretation by media:

Breeding dogs for fighting or keeping a dog that has fought before will be an offence.

Since you can't 'breed' dogs to fight - you can only train them or sell them for it, this needs revision.  This type of wording is too vague and is just asking for subjective interpretation about what constitutes 'breeding' dogs to fight.

Also, obviously the second part means an automatic death sentence for any dogs removed from fighting busts.  I thought we'd advanced past that way of thinking - well, except in HSUS-land and Houston.

Overall though, it's about bloody time they used their heads since their precedent affected the rest of us.

Hey, McGuinty, the weather is changing for the dog-haters out there.  You could be the next one to get with the program.  Or maybe that pencil-necked, unelected civil servant in Denver would like to give it a try.

I see those infernal busybodies over at CCF have uncovered some interesting facts about a group in Philadelphia.  They've also got a new website going called HumaneWatch.

It turns out that an HSUS senior vice president is booked to speak at a fundraiser for the Humane League of Philadelphia on Saturday. 

From the CCF press release:.

WASHINGTON, Dec 11, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Consumer Group: HSUS vice president will keynote benefit for animal-rights terrorism group

 

A full-page ad from the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom will appear in the front section of the December 11 New York Times, accusing the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) of helping an animal-rights terrorism group raise money.

 

On December 13, HSUS Senior Vice President Heidi Prescott is scheduled to deliver a keynote address at The Humane League of Philadelphia's holiday fundraising party.

 

The Humane League of Philadelphia was founded in July 2002 as the Philadelphia chapter of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), an organization convicted in 2006 -- along with six of its national leaders -- on federal domestic terrorism charges.

 

Thanks to Terrierman for providing the following links.

This New Hampshire site lists breed-related defects and disorders:

http://www.handicappedpets.biz/genetic/breeds.htm

This link to the British Kennel Club site lists cause of death incidence by breed:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/570

Hey, do you want to see one of the former Vick dogs in action?

Check out the video at this post. (link fixed...sigh....)

Or watch it right here:

That's one scary-ass mutt.

h/t Donna at BadRap - and thanks for helping the V-dogs break the stereotype.

The wonderful, cantankerous Terrierman has a question which should be fairly easy for you to answer:

What the Hell is an American Staffordshire Terrier?

So, if you'd like to explain here I can collect your answers and send them along, or you can comment over there.  Keep in mind that he moderates comments.

I let all comments through and if any are libelous, threatening to an identifiable person or just plain moronic (you know who you are) I delete 'em.

My place, my rules, right?  Right?

Have fun.

I see that Susan Hunter and Richard Brisbin have made the results of their research into BSL available. 

Panic Policy Making: Canine Breed Bans in Canada and the United States

Although dogs have bitten humans for millennia, in recent years state, provincial, and local governments have responded to incidents of dog bites with legislation or administrative rules that ban the ownership of dog breeds such as American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, and American Pit Bulls. In this paper we examine if a framework of “panic policymaking” can explain the passage of breed bans. The paper first develops a framework to explain panic policymaking that builds upon and modifies psychological theories of decision making, the sociological literature on moral panics, the analytical and case study literature about critical junctures in policy paths, behavioral economic studies of responses to risks, and the empirical studies of punctuated policy equilibria. Using data from a survey of the Canadian and U.S. public and interviews with interest group activists and public officials in locales that considered and defeated or passed breed bans, we then assess the predictive value of the concept of panic policymaking. Finally, we consider how breed bans indicate the scope and limits of the concept of animal rights.

Here's a link to the paper (PDF) some of which is still in draft format (minor typos here and there). 

http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/faculty/BRISBIN/Papers/2007.%20Panic%20Policy%20Making.pdf

And here's an excerpt from the section about Ontario to pique your interest:

Ontario

Although the record of events in Ontario is difficult to construct because of behind-closed-doors decisions that respondents would not describe to us, the fate of breed ban legislation in the province evidences a specific version of panic policy making.

Recognition

Although a few publicized violent dog attacks had transpired in Ontario in the decade prior to 2005, including attacks that resulted in the death of a child and assaults on police, these attacks produced no immediate public outcry or media demands for the control of dangerous dogs.

However, in August 2004 the media had covered how Toronto police had to fire more than a dozen bullets to kill two pit bulls who had turned on the man walking them and how a pit bull had attacked a man in London, Ontario who tried to protect a puppy from the pit bull’s attack (CBC News 2004). In late August 2004 the Ontario

Liberal Party’s Attorney General, Michael Bryant, decided to legislate a ban on the ownership of pit bulls. Critics of the Liberals–the majority party in the Legislative Assembly or “the government”--havesuggested that the ban was a tactic manufactured by the Liberals to deflect criticism of the growth of crime and gang activity, especially in Toronto (confidential Interviews). Opposition Progressive Conservative and New Democrat legislators also thought that he proposed the ban to deflect media attention from other issues and unpopular policies bedeviling the Liberal government. In their eyes, the identification of the pit bull problem was “all political.” It was a manufactured intrusive event.

Soon Bryant held news conferences to tout the proposed ban and link it, by inference, to criminals, outlaw bikers, and urban gangs–groups with members often drawn from ethnic minorities.  Although a reporter showed Bryant a photo array of dogs and he was unable to identify a pit bull, his party nonetheless pushed ahead in its promotion of what became a series of amendments to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act. It held a series of “consultations” with police, animal law enforcement officers, humane societies, and what it called a “broad spectrum of stakeholders” that it selected (Ontario 2005: 929). Therefore, the government had engaged in the construction of the intrusive event. However, as supported by our survey data, no evidence exists that the event created a contagion of fear of pit bulls and a moral panic. Also, no emotional assessment of alternatives appears to have generated an unwillingness for the general public to consider other policies, such as the effective dangerous dog law of Calgary (Calgary 2004) supported by national animal interest groups.

Characterization

The Liberal government used press releases and media interviews with Attorney General Bryant in an attempt to orchestrate public support for a pit bull ban. Bryant characterized the dogs as a “menace” and a “loaded weapon.” Press releases cited municipal officials, including the Mayor of Toronto, the Chief of the Toronto Police Service, the Mayor of Kitchener, and the Mayor of Wawa, as supporters of the ban. The government also arranged for press statements from victims of attacks about the extent of their injuries and the Animal Services Agency of Winnipeg about the effectiveness of their ban.   These comments and releases emphasized the danger pit bulls posed for children and conveyed horror stories of their behavior (author’s observations on media reportage).

[snip]