Barb Haywood will be on the super-cool online radio station Bully Domain tonight talking about her great book.  Time is 9:55 pm EDT.

Here's the link, I'm listening to it right now and they are playing some good stuff!

Tune in tonight and remember that 50% of the proceeds from every sale of the book purchased through Caveat or the DLCC go directly into our legal fund!

 

What's the deal with that?   more »

John Yates sounds the alarm over PUPS - the HSUS's newest foray into making natural dog behaviour a crime   more »

John Yates sounds the alarm over the escalating war against pet ownership using quasi-legal procedures and citizen volunteers to invade pet owners' privacy and circumvent due process.   more »

Today.

She'll feature the 'tiniest dog in the world' and also talk about the puppy mill issue.

Dare we hope that the Oprah crew has done some research into Who's Who in the animal protection racket or will we have to watch Humane Wayne's act again?

I guess we'll find out.

 

There's nothing I like better than a reason to rage against the machine.

Over at Bark Obama!

You've probably seen this, but if not, it's worth watching (4 min 30 sec). Dawn Capp shares what happened when she DNA tested her purebred dog using one of the new kits.  There's a surprise ending!

 

What was that about these tests being 99% accurate, HSUS?

Maureen Dowd has written a very sharp column about the US election.

Why don't you go over to Bark Obama! and follow the link?

 

Lassie, Get Help has a good piece today about Ontario's dog-killing law.

"How can anyone, in 2008 for crissakes, rationalize killing a dog by citing vagaries of appearance? "Breed specific" is a misnomer, after all: BSL condemns not only certain pedigreed dogs but also cross-breds and mixed breed dogs — friendly dogs that have never harmed or threatened to harm anyone — because of their coat color or the shape of their head. This is bigotry, not science."

Indeed.

She's links to some articles at the end which explain the state of the science of genetics, especially with respect to how successfully certain characteristics can be isolated.

Fascinating stuff.

and are useless for identifying a dog's ancestry   more »

I think he's got it!  By Jove he's (nearly) got it!

From my great-grandmother's home town:

Pit bull law should be overturned

 

An Ontario Court of Appeal is hearing arguments this week that literally are a matter of life and death. However, because these aren't human lives, many people might not even know it's going on.

That, however, doesn't lessen its importance.

The case in question is an effort to have the Ontario government's 2005 legislation that forbids the owning, breeding or selling of pit bulls overturned.

Lawyer Clayton Ruby is arguing -- correctly -- that the ban is "unconstitutionally vague,'' and should be sent back to the legislature.

 

Sioux City Council:  Behind the curve, manipulated by special interests or just tired of local wankers complaining about something that doesn't exist? 

I guess we'll never know.

Councillors in Sioux City bought the propaganda and ignored the facts, passing their 'pit bull' ban on Monday.

 

Pit Bull Ban Passes

Posted: Sep 15, 2008 11:09 PM EDT

Sioux City's Pit Bull ban has passed.

Right now, it is illegal for the people of Sioux City to buy or adopt a new Pit Bull. That is....if they plan to keep living in Sioux City.

For reasons that are unclear, people who know absolutely nothing about the issue feel they are qualified to enact discriminatory laws that have failed to achieve their stated goal wherever they have been enacted.

This is amusing:

The ban is effective immediately. It applies to all dogs that are more than 50 percent Pit Bull.

I don't understand what that is even supposed to mean, let alone how one could enforce it.

Seriously, what does it mean?  What is 'Pit Bull'?  How do you establish that a dog is more than 50% of something that can't be defined or measured and that doesn't technically exist?

What they seem to be saying is that if a dog's ancestry is hovering at 49.9% pibble, it's OK but if that Bull-O-Meter hits 50.1% the dog is doomed.  Again I ask, how will this be proved?

What happened to the One Drop rule which all the troglodytes repeat?  I mean, are all these imaginary 'Pit Bulls' safe as long as that gene (which no scientist has been able to isolate) is watered down with pariah  or poodle breeding, or aren't they?

Then there's the fact that any non-purebred dog - a crossbred which is the progeny of two purebreds or a mixed breed  - the progeny of mixed breed parents - is by nature no more than 50% of any breed right out of the gate.

So I guess they are saying that only purebred dogs are banned, as well as crossbred pups from two banned breeds.  That begs the question:  Do they even know what makes a dog purebred?

No, I didn't think so.

What is the purpose of such a zany bylaw - I mean besides shutting up the morons who want to ban 'pit bulls', harassing law-abiding citizens and killing harmless domestic dogs?

Check this out, it's in the staff recommendations:

FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN: We will be known as a safe and healthy city.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  Cut it out, you're killing me (too)!

Here's how they plan to define a 'pit bull' in Sioux City:

7.10.010 Pit Bull defined. A “pit bull” is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominately of the breeds of Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier as set forth in the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the aforementioned breeds.

This should be fun to watch.

Methinks it's time to sue Sioux City.  The breed clubs could get that ball rolling over the misuse of their copyrighted standards.

Here's a link to all the paper, including the bylaw:

http://www.sioux-city.org/pdflib/councilpacket.pdf

Money raised, fun had   more »

Mike Bryant Discussing 'Pit Bulls', Oct 2004

 

I see that Brytler's getting farther away from where the action is.  It seems he couldn't cut it in Aboriginal Affairs either, although I doubt he upset as many people as he did when he was Attorney General.  Brad Duguid, aka 'The Weasel' is taking his place.

"Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant moves to take over the Economic Development Ministry. Labour Minister Brad Duguid switches to Aboriginal Affairs."

We used to call this type of action Special Project when I worked as a programmer at CIBC in the early 80s.  That meant they gave the person an office, a phone and absolutely nothing to do.  Eventually they'd quit.  Much more frugal than firing those overpaid Exec types - no severance package required.  Heh.

Maybe Brytler should look farther afield for employment opportunities since Ontario doesn't seem to be working out for him.  He could go hang with his buddy Skeldon in Toledo, or visit fellow tin-potter Nelson in Denver. 

I can probably get him a job as a Schutzhund 'stranger' if he's interested.  I'm sure he'd qualify because let's face it, few are stranger than Brytler. 

He should give me a call.

Those exact words were spoken by Mr Charney, lead counsel for the government's team, at the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday. This followed an argument that was a jaw-dropping adventure in obfuscation.  If his head felt anything like mine during his bafflegabbery, I'm surprised it didn't explode.  His ears became increasingly red while he tried to evade direct questions from the bench, which was funny to watch.  I'm really tired of the back of that guy's head, I tell you what.

He's the one who announced that there's no such thing as a 'pit bull' at our Remedy hearing in July, 2007.

He also said yesterday that he didn't like his own argument - on that point we can agree.

The day before, he gave us another great zinger:  "We're making this up as we go along."  No kidding.

He is a good lawyer, they say, and very senior at the Attorney General's office.  Your tax dollars at work.

Charney shouldn't tease, though.  I thought he was  prepared to come clean and admit he's been working for the wrong side all along but it was just a momentary lapse.  It must be tough to have to defend a law that is based on propaganda.

Our evidence and basic arguments have not changed.  You can view my original notes from 2006 starting with this post, Day One.  At the top you'll see a link to Day Three and at that post, to Day Two. They are out of order.

We pointed out various ways in which the Superior Court judge had erred and argued technicalities and subtleties as well as broad-brush principles in an eloquent, clear and persuasive manner.  Let's hope it was enough.

*

The Court of Appeal is quite different from Superior Court.

There are three judges and they ask questions and chat back and forth.  It's a very pleasant atmosphere and oddly, seems more casual than the lower court.

The government's schtick doesn't bug me as much as it once did and not just because I'm totally used to hearing it.  It's because it sounds almost quaint now that most of it is so outdated.

They keep on about 'pit bulls' attacking without warning signs, doing more damage, being dangerous, etc - all the mythology that was debunked four years ago here in Ontario by people who knew what they were talking about.  To hear it repeated this week was a trip down bad memory lane.

Think of what's changed since this Bryant nonsense started in late 2004.

Holland repealed its 15-year-old ban.

Lower Saxony changed its law when it was found that 'pit bulls' were the same as other dogs.

More studies have been done into canine behaviour.  More bite studies have been done.  More data have been collected.

The Vick dogs - what a great thing that was for us because it hit the mainstream media, hard.

We had the Ontario law found partly unconsitutional.

Many places have rejected banning dogs and have brought in generic laws instead.

A lot more has happened that's affected public opinion regarding 'pit bulls' in North America as well as the body of evidence.

We want the whole section of DOLA struck down, not just bits and pieces.  Our wonderful lawyers, Clayton Ruby and Breese Davies, explained all that and made many excellent points.

The justices were paying atttention and asking the right questions.  The government lawyers were typically disorganized and weren't answering direct questions from the bench.  I doubt that will win them many Brownie points - at least I hope not.

All in all, I feel pretty good.  There are always times during these hearings when I feel like butting in, saying "No, that's not true and I have the scientific papers to prove it" or "What's your source for that statement?  The Star?"

I will try to post a few more details about what happened later but I wanted to put a bit of a summary up.

The bench reserved judgement, which I see as a good thing.  Usually, they give their decision right after the arguments have finished.  In about 10 - 15% of cases, they reserve it.

We have no idea when that decision might come out.

In the meantime, contrary to the nonsense in the Toronto Star, I feel as confident as possible.  We've done what we can to fight this law.  Whether it's been good enough remains to be seen.

Since we're Canadians, we're never very confident.  It's a national trait - believing that every job could be done better.  Whatever.

When a law is based on a lie and then irrational and circular rationalizations are presented ex post facto as 'reasons', you have to believe it won't stand up to judicial scrutiny once the facts are made available.  To do otherwise would be to lose faith in the justice system.

I'm not quite ready to lose faith in the Court - since it's the only thing that can protect me from the government.

When I know more or can put together some notes, I'll post further info.

Step two   more »

Who you gonna call?   more »

Dog owners beware, the push is on in the Commonwealth to entrench the radical animal rights agenda   more »

Talkin' bout that unethical bunch at peta   more »

Bark Obama! Check it out.   more »

.   more »

And the trolls march on...   more »

A graphic example of success   more »

Oh, the irrationality of it all...   more »

Calling all animal lovers - the time is now   more »

Gee, if this keeps up, he won't have time for us anymore.

Great interview, lots of common sense there - pass it on!

When Animal Rights fanatics lobby successfully for mandatory sterilization as they did in Los Angeles   more »

John Yates: Anyone Who Sells More Than Two Dogs or cats, Raises Two Litters Must Comply – HSUS Pushing Same Legislation In Chicago, IL, IN   more »

Pet overpopulation - a myth with legs   more »