A pit bull named Elliot Ness is anything but untouchable. Loving and friendly, these traits keep most pit bulls from being good police dogs.

"The main problem we're finding with pit bulls is that they're too darn nice. All they want to do is just sit at your feet or crawl in your lap. They're very nice dogs," said Deborah Thedos, Cook County K9 Unit.

Police officers main contact with pit bulls is when they break up dog fighting rings. When encountering these dogs they found that they were anything but vicious.

"We knew from the get-go that these dogs, they aren't made this way," said Sheriff Tom Dart, Cook County.

For Elliot Ness's partner the pit bull is much more than just a dog.

"He's my best friend. He's my friend. He's my baby and he knows it," said Thedos .

Here's the whole item, with accompanying video.

Thanks to ABC News for running a true story about 'pit bulls'.

You made my day.

ALERT:

The constitutional challenge to represent the collective, national interest of responsible dog owners is in dire straits.

We started at $107,000 in December and are now 67,000 $56,000 $52,300 $49,000 (this is unbelievable!) shy of being able to have our voices heard in Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. We have been granted an extension to come up with this amount, but just until the end of January 2009.

BIG BROTHER, DAVID AND GOLIATH

On-SCARIO ( AKA Ontario Canada ) has flagrantly wasted tax payers dollars to act as Goliath against our David ( Banned Aid Coalition ) to ban any "substantially similar" dogs to the banned pure bred dogs, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Pit Bull Terriers.

NOW WHO IS THE BULLY?

Over 4000 dogs are dead, even puppies - because of the way they look, not the way they behave.

In essence, the Ontario government has usurped the federal Pedigree Act and has decided what breeds and mixes thereof will live, drive through or breed  within its boundaries - for no valid reason.

It simply doesn't matter whether you like the bully dogs or not. It is now a matter of sending a message to government that we are no longer willing to allow politicians to sacrifice the lives of innocent dogs.

DOGS for DOLLARS: IS YOUR DOG WORTH A DOLLAR?

ONE DOLLAR, A LOONY TO FIGHT THE LOONS IN GOVERNMENT!

PAY PAL. Please go to www.dlcc.ca and click on the "Donate!" link for the Pay Pal tool (scroll down on the home page to find the button).

You can also make an online payment from your financial institution's website by sending a bill payment to treasurer @ doglegislationcouncilcanada.org (without the spaces, sorry but we get a lot of spam when we post live links).

Send cheques or money orders directly to Banned Aid lawyer Clayton Ruby at the following address, c/o BANNED AID LEGAL CHALLENGE FUND.

Note:  Please do not send amounts of one dollar to the lawyers - they'll kill us if they have to account for that.  Please use the other ways to contribute shown above instead.

Ruby & Shiller

11 Prince Arthur Ave.

Toronto, ON M5R 1B2

Tel:  416 964 9664

On behalf of the BANNED AID COALITION  and the Dogs

THANK YOU!

By a 4-1 vote at its regular board meeting Dec. 17, the Ukiah City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance to be brought back for final approval at a later date mandating the change of the word “owner” to “guardian” in city code regarding canines.

Councilmember Doug Crane said he could not stand behind the intentions of the actions because it would lead to more problems down the road. 

“I went online and asked the difference between ownership and guardianship,” he said, making himself the lone voice of dissent to the idea on the board. “I found several links to PETA. If you’ll remember, PETA has stated several goals: no pets, no zoos, no eating of animals, no use of leather. A complete paradigm shift in this society and strategically if communities across the country change this language in decades it will be enough communities that it’s critical mass, then the (law)suits will begin. "

[snip]

Councillor Crane sounds like a smart guy.  I wish we had more politicians of his calibre out there.  There's more info at the link.

Guardianship is a strange concept indeed.  While obviously, most of us think of our dogs as important members of the family who need of our care and protection, changing their status from property is a very dangerous idea.

But it isn't really guardianship in the true sense that the animal liberationists want.  It's really just the removal of property rights around dogs, which would ultimately make it much easier to seize pets from responsible homes and kill them.  It's the same idea as a breed ban in that it feeds the ultimate goal of an end to animal ownership and eventually, domestic animals.

If I am legally, rather than philosophically, the guardian of my dog then there are certainly questions that would need to be answered.

Would I need their consent to perform euthanasia in times of extreme, irremediable suffering, or does my 'guardian' status grant me power of attorney as well?

The same question arises with respect to performing invasive, life-altering surgery on a healthy animal.  Would I have the right to neuter my dog without his or her consent?

Would a breeder have the authority to place puppies in suitable homes or would there have to be some kind of agency that would hold hearings on puppy placements?

Would it become illegal to buy and sell dogs?

Would I be obligated to hire a caregiver if I had to be at work or go on vacation?  Could I still board my pets at their regular kennel?

How about using a crate?  Walking with a leash and collar?  Obedience training?

If I died intestate and had no human family would my estate automatically transfer to my dependents, in this case my pets?  Do I need to appoint a trustee to look after my dogs when writing a will?  At what age do dogs become 'adults' or are they considered dependent for life?

Would I be exposed to impromptu visits by animal welfare agents who would decide whether or not my 'guardianship' was up to snuff?

Would that change the status of my dog licence?  I presume that there would be no more licensing or microchipping, since that is an affirmation of ownership. 

There are many other questions that arise, I'm sure you have considered them.

The whole guardian idea is a very bad one, in my opinion, and is just one more example of government busybodies being manipulated by fanatics into buying a pig in a poke - in this case, the animal liberationist ideology.

I suspect that Mr Crane might appreciate some support.  Contact info for the Ukiah City Council is available at No Pit Bull Bans.

Assaults

Uttering threats

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Idem

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16.